Clark's railway digest.
72
PRICE. 50 CENTS. RAILWAY DIGEST -AND- HAND BOOK -FOR THE-
Transcript of Clark's railway digest.
PRICE. 50 CENTS.
RAILWAY DIGEST -AND-
HAND BOOK -FOR THE-
DIRECT THROUGH LINE
Chicago to Denver! CHICAGO to OMAHA,
CHICAGO to KANSAS CITY, ST. LOUIS to OMAHA,
KANSAS CITY to OMAHA.
This is the only through line—owning its own road entire—from Chicago to
Denver, and is the Short Dine between these points hy more than 30 miles. It
is also the only line running directly through
DENVER and SALT LAKE CITY EN ROUTE TO
SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGELES,
AND ALL CALIFORNIA POINTS.
PAUL MORTON, A. C. DAWES, P. S. EUSTIS, G. P. & T. A., C. B. & Q. R. R. G. P. A., H. & St. J. R. R. G. P. & T. A., B. & M. R. R. R.
CHICAGO, ILL. ST. JOSEPH, MO. OMAHA, NEB.
CLARK'S
RAILWAY DIGEST SECOND EDITION.
A Practical Hand-Book
Valuable Information
9 STATION SERVICE.
-<P°vF40^ By L. A. CLARK. DEC27 1886' >jn,
V/x ^ {%r UIZM-
Chas. N. Trivess, Printer, Chicago.
1886.
\
COPYRIGHT, 1886,
By L. A. Clark.
PREFACE.
The many complimentary testimonials the first edition of this work re¬
ceived from railway men of all departments of the service, and the marked
favor with which it was received, especially by those engaged in the station
service, have encouraged the author to prepare this Second Edition in the
hope of rendering some additional aid particularly to the railway station
service of America.
The Eules of General Application have been compiled from the rules in
force upon about ninety per cent, of the railway mileage of the United
States.
The Legal Department has been subjected to several revisions that im¬
portant decisions only be reported .and those only having direct bearing
upon the station service, this enabling the em ploye to act legally in legal
matter and both protect the interests of his employers and of himself.
Eailway cases generally involve large sums of money. An agent in ig¬
norance of the legal rights of his company in his business transactions and
the limits of liability as between the company and the public, may precipi¬
tate a legal controversy. His plea of ignorance would neither be enter¬
tained in a court nor excused by his superior officers. The author submits
this second edition of the Digest hoping that it may prove as acceptable
and beneficial to those for whom it is prepared as did the former.
L. A. CLAEK.
3
RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION.
All agents should be polite and considerate in their intercourse with the
public. The reputation and prosperity of the company depend, to a great
extent, upon the manner in which the public are treated by employes.
Maintain good temper under all circumstances. Should a party for any
cause, real or imaginary, abuse you, endeavor to convince him of his error;
failing in this keep quiet; in after hours his will be the feelings of regret,
not yours.
In dealing with the public the interests of the company should be the
first object of consideration, but strict justice and honor should be main¬ tained.
Agents should keep all books and accounts neatly and promptly written
up, which should never be exhibited to the public, but open to inspection
of the proper officers of the company only.
Agents should consider it their duty to not only forward and deliver
freight that originates through the ordinary channels of transportation of
local trade, but to encourage by personal efforts, the shipment of freight
over the line to and from their stations, keeping thoroughly posted as to
the business of the vicinity and general freight agent advised of all mat¬
ters calculated to affect the revenue arising from his department. The bus¬
iness of a freight department of a railroad is to carry such property that
is properly the subject of transportation on or in freight cars.
Property is received for transportation only on terms and conditions
specified in tariffs and classifications of general rules of the railroad. If
the shippers refuse to comply with the same agents should decline to re¬
ceive their property for transportation and notify the division or general
freight agent of the fact.
The company does not agree to carry property by* any particular train
or any time for any particular market but should forward it with as reason-
able despatch as the general business will permit.
Gold or silver, any kind manufactured articles of gold or silver, as jew¬
els, watches, drafts, bank bills, notes, deeds, mail matter or valuable paper
of any kind, are not received for transportation on any terms.
Goods in paper bundles or boxes should not be received for transporta¬
tion. Property in second hand boxes or barrels should not be received
for shipment unless the original marks are erased.
o
6
When wagons or carriages not boxed are shipped, agents should be
careful to see that no articles such as cushions, harness or whips are left with
them. Such articles should be boxed.
Grain, fruit, or vegetables should not be shipped in bulk except in full
car loads.
Articles received for transportation should be properly packed, as the
railroad company will not be responsible for the loss or damage resulting
from careless or improper packing which does not occur from negligence of
its employees.
Every package should be plainly marked with name or shipping mark
of consignee, destination, including state or territory.
In shipments less than car loads consisting of several articles or
packages, as household goods, furniture, etc., each separate article or
package should be properly marked and an accurate list of same furnished
by shippers.
Marking with chalk or with paper labels or with initials only, is not suf¬ ficient.
Less than car loads shipments of articles such as flour, wool, cotton,
rags, iron or other articles which cannot be fully marked with name of con¬
signee and destination, which are liable to be mixed with other consignments
of same character, should be so marked or numbered that each package of
consignment could be easily recognized.
Shipping receipts in duplicate are required for each shipment or con¬
signment stating the number of packages, weight and description of each
package, articles shipped, name of consignee, destination, name of station at
which it is to be left. If any particular route is desired beyond the line of
the road originating, it should be designated on the receipt, the original be
signed by agent of the company, duplicate or copy be retained by agent as
his authority for shipping property.
The company is not liable for leakage of oils, or any kind of liquids,
breakage of any glass, earthen or queensware, injury to or breakage of
looking-glasses, glass show-cases, picture-frames, carboys of acids, or arti¬
cles packed in glass, stoves and stove-furniture, castings, hollow ware, ma¬
chinery and carriage-furniture, musical instruments of any kind, packages
of eggs, nor for rust of iron, and for iron articles, nor for the loss in weight
or otherwise in grain, coffee in bags, or rice in tierces, nor for condition of
baling on hay, hemp or cotton, nor for loss of nuts in bags, or of lemons
or oranges in boxes, nor for losses or damage of any kind on any articles
whose bulk requires it to be carried or which is usually or by agreement
carried on open cars, nor for damage to perishable property of any kind
occasioned by delay of shipment for any cause, or by change of the weather,
nor for loss or damage to any articles or loss to any property or article
whatever by fire or any other casualty while in transit or while in depots
or places of transhipment, or at depots or landings at point of delivery, nor
for loss or damage caused by delays from storms, accidents, or other un-
7
avoidable causes, nor for damage to any articles arising from effects of heat
or cold, nor for damages to the hidden contents of packages, nor for a de¬
ficiency of drygoods, boots, shoes, hats, caps, or straw goods, unless pack¬
ages are properly strapped when shipped; unless, first: It is clearly
shown that the loss or damage was caused through carelessness of the
servants of the railroad company, or, second : Unless such freight dam¬
aged or receipted for and forwarded was at company’s risk.
The company is not responsible for wrong delivery, loss or damage
which might have been avoided by skillful or sufficient marking or packing
which occurs without the negligence of the company or their agent.
The company is not responsible for the delivery of property at points
off their road or for the loss or damage which may occur to such property
after the same has been delivered to connecting line.
Agents are not authorized to give credit.
Cars at a station, containing freight, should be kept locked.
The use of pencil on business papers or documents should be avoided.
No part of a consignment should be delivered until charges are paid on
the whole. Agents should in all cases write the name of their station in
full at the head of expense-bills and receipts.
Allow no one unauthorized, to have access to, or receive information
from your books, accounts, or correspondence.
An agent should never allow his station dating-stamp to remain ex¬
posed when not in use, but keep the same under lock.
Freight is always taken subject to the company’s weight, and subject
to charges for re-packing, or cooperage, if necessary.
Company property should be billed to some employe of the company,
and handled with as much care as commercial freight.
It is in error to undertake, or agree, to carry property by any particu¬
lar train, or to make delivery at any particular time.
Companies are not responsible for the loss of freight erroneously billed;
as cigars, powder, matches, etc., shipped as drygoods.
Agents are responsible for all freight, from the time of its receipt at
their warehouse, until delivered, or forwarded, as the case may be.
Companies are not responsible for damages to, or shortage of, any ar¬
ticle discovered after the same has been recipted for, and removed from the
warehouse. If agent, in checking freight at a way-station, discovers a shortage, the
fact should be plainly noted on way-bill, showing seals, etc., and signed by
the conductor. An agent should leave his station accounts, at the close of the day’s
business, in such condition that a successor, if necessary, could open busi¬
ness on the morrow, and proceed intelligently in the discharge of duties.
No agent should agree to furnish cars for live-stock, grain, or other
freight, at any specified time, but should make requisition for cars in the
8
order in which shippers have applied for them ; and when received, dis¬
tribute them in like manner.
The improper marking of goods is the source of much annoyance and
expense to companies. The names of consignees, the destination, in full,
should be plainly marked on all packages, unless otherwise provided for,
and all old marks should be completely erased.
Require pre-payment on all freight not clearly worth charges at forced
sale; and, as a rule, decline to advance on freight to be forwarded, unless
the same is the legitimate charges of a connecting line; even in this, great
care should be exercised.
Agents should not allow shippers to load a defective car, nor an amount
in excess of maximum capacity of car ; in a violation of either, the defect
should be repaired, or excess removed before forwarding, as a matter of
protection to the company.
When necessary on account of bulk to forward any article on open or
flat cars, the company will not be responsible for loss or damage caused by
fire, wet, falling off the cars, or otherwise. Property liable to damage by
weather should not be shipped on open cars except at the request of the
shipper or owner, and entirely at his risk. Receipt should so state.
Shippers delivering property for transportation on which two classifi¬ cations are made—one at “ Owner’s Risk,” and one at “ Company’s Risk ”—
such as stoves, stove-plates, castings, glazed sash, marble, etc., should in¬
sert in the receipt before it is signed the words, “ Owner’s Risk,” or “ Com¬
pany’s Risk,” as the case may be. Agents should not do this, but it should be
done by shipper, that there may be a distinct understanding as to who
takes risk of breaks and damages. Many articles are classified at “Owner’s
Risk,” or “Released,” and no provisions ar6 made for such articles at com¬
pany’s risk.
Consignors who wish their property shipped at an agreed valuation as specified in classification, should so mark their receipts.
Forwarding agents are held responsible for guarantees. When proper¬
ty on which charges must be guaranteed is received from another road,
agents should require guarantees of such connecting line, and should not
accept that from original shipper alone. All guarantees should be in
writing, and in duplicate—original sent to general freight agent or freight auditor, as the rule of the company may provide.
Agents should examine cars loaded at or for their stations, and ascer¬
tain if the contents are as represented. When they have reason to think that
the contents of packages are not properly described or billed, they should
satisfy themselves by personal inspection, opening the packages, if neces¬
sary, in the presence of witnesses. If found to be falsely represented, make corrections accordingly.
When shipping receipt calls for more freight than is delivered for transportation—thus: Receipt calls for 4, but only 3 are delivered:_
a.—If from a connecting line, receipt for full amount with note of
9
shortage, thus—“4(1 short).” Weight and charges to be as connecting
line gives them—say, for example, lOOtbs., 75c.
Bill thus—“4, (1 short) lOOlbs., 75c.”
b.—If not from a connecting line, receipt for and bill actual quantity,
and actual weight, erasing in ink* the erroneous figures on the receipt and
inserting correct ones.
Before you sign a receipt, see that it is properly filled out, and draw
your pen through the blank space, so that nothing additional can be in¬
serted after it is signed.
Do not receipt for or bill any property as “Mdse.,” “Merchandise,” or
“ Castings,” but describe the freight'fully enough to denote what it is, and
how it should be classified. The weight of each class should be stated
separately. If castings, the article to which they belong, as threshing ma¬
chine, stove, etc., must be specified.
Before making way-bill examine duplicate receipt or shipping order,
and see that it shows a clear and plain record of checking into the car.
When found correct in every particular, make way-bill strictly in accordance
therewith. Everything on the receipt which affects the rate or condition of
shipment, as well as a full description of property, including marks and
brands, should be shown on the way-bill.
When property in loaded cars received at your station is transfered in
other cars, note in ink on way-bill number of car to which and the station at
which such property is transferred, and sign your name in full. Tally the-
freight plainly on the way-bills and note any differences. When it is necessary
to transfer freight to another car, and to rebill the same, note on way-bill
the number, initial, and description of car from which, and reason why
transferred.
All transfers must be noted on way bills so that original car number can
be known as well as intermediate transfer.
Tracers for lost freight should receive prompt attention. Before
making answer, agents should thoroughly examine the premises and defin¬
itely ascertain whether the freight is in their possession.
When parties in charge of stock unload it “en route” for feeding or oth¬
er purposes and animals are left out of the car on account of being crippled
or dead, notation should be made in ink on face of way bill, naming station
at which such animals are taken out, in order that receiving agents may know
whether or not a shortage occurs when animals do not check out as
billed.
Agents should send notice, either by mail or messenger, to consignee
promptly on arrival of freight, but not before, and be careful that the notice
states the correct amount due the company. The record of this should be
kept for future reference. While agents are expected to treat all parties
with courtesy and extend to them all facilities and accommodations for tran¬
sacting their business, they should not assume th.e slightest risk, but retain
10
such control of business as will render the company perfectly safe from
loss.
Freight should be delivered only to the consignee or on his written or¬
der, which must be carefully preserved. If agents are ordered by shippers
not to deliver property to consignees, they will hold the same and ask gen¬
eral freight agent for instructions.
Agents should turn over freight to connecting lines when so consigned,
as soon after arrival as practicable and should use all proper means to induce
parties to take away their freight within 24 hours after its arrival. Freight
billed to any one not known, cannot be found, is not called for within rea¬
sonable time, receiving agent should promptly notify forwarding agent of
the facts in the case, and request him at once to ascertain and advise what
disposition to be made of the property. If no satisfactory directions are
obtained, receiving agent should send copy of way-bill, with report of all
facts and correspondence, to general freight agent.
Agents at points of destination of freight which has been carried
through on cards will see that such cards on both sides of the car are re¬
moved before they allow the cars to leave their station.
Loading articles on top of box or stock cars. Agents should in no in¬
stance allow freight to be so loaded at their station nor should they receive
cars so loaded or from connecting lines without special authority so to do.
Attention is called to the importance of securely fastening freight
loaded on flat cars particularly in the case of machinery or engines on wheels,
to prevent them from falling or running off cars while in transit. Agents
should be particular to see that this class of freight is securely blocked and
fastened before leaving their station.
In the loading of long timbers or bridge iron and other long freight
which require two flat cars for loading, particular attention should be
given to have the load distributed equally between both trucks of each car
by placing the supporters of the load near the center of each car. When
thus loaded, so as to distribute the weight between both pairs of trucks, the
added capacity of both cars can be allowed as a maximum, but when the
load rests on the end trucks, the maximum must not exceed the capacity of
one car.
The inside doors of box, furniture and refrigerator cars are frequently
damaged by allowing them to be used for other than their original purpose,
when box or furniture cars are loaded with grain in bulk or refrigerator cars
with perishable freight, it is expected and intended that the inside doors
should be closed to protect the freight, but when loaded with ordinary
merchandise, packages, and especially lumber, these inside doors must not
be used, but always set back out of the way, using the outside doors to close
the cars. When it is necessary to close the inside door to protect the prop¬
erty, care should be taken in loading not to place heavy packages against
the doors or in such position that by the motion of the cars the packages
11
will work up against them, making it necessary to pry them off their hinges,
or otherwise damage them before freight can be unloaded.
Under no circumstances should Agents issue bill of lading or receipt
for property which is not actually in possession of the company. They
should be dated the date the property is received, show all “advanced
charges” which are to appear on way-bill. Duplicates or copies should not
be given unless plainly marked “duplicate” or “copy.”
If at junction point state on way-bill name of connecting line freight
is received from, also station, and way-bill number at originating point.
Number bills consecutively, and back them carefully with ink. Any nota¬
tions on way-bills as to stopping short of destination, or other information
important to the conductor, must be plainly written on the outside as well
as inside of the way-bill.
Freight shipped consigned to the care of a second party the agent should
deliver only to the party in whose care the same is shipped, or if consigned
to the order of a certain party with instructions to notify a second party,
only on order of the party to whom consigned, in which case the original
bill of lading must be surrendered to the agent, and should be tiled for ref¬
erence.
All bad order packages should be carefully weighed, and the weight en¬
tered on the receipt and way-bill; the term “B. O.” or “bad order” is not
sufficient; the exact condition should be ascertained and described. If
consignee accepts freight which has been pilfered or damaged, examine
his invoice if possible, and take memorandum of articles remaining and
supposed to be short wTith utmost exactness, making detailed report of
same to proper officer.
In contracting freight through to a point on another line, by order of
eneral freight agent, the through rate and line proportions, if special,
with authority, should appear on the way-bill. A violation of this rule will
often occasion the connecting line billing their proportion of haul at tariff,
which on arrival at destination aggregates an excess of the contract rate,
invariably provoking unpleasantness, and occasionally a needless replevin
of the goods. No agent should receipt for goods to a point beyond the ter¬
minus of his line without special authority. After the property has been
delivered to the company to be forwarded, it becomes the property of the
consignee, and in no instance should agent change the consignee and des¬
tination, unless by order of general freight agent, or compelled to do so by
process of law. Always examine the condition of the seals and fastenings of cars imme¬
diately upon their receipt, preserving a record of such. The same care
should be taken in forwarding cars, as a matter of self protection. Should
you be at a way station and a conductor of freight train request you to seal
a car which had been discovered unsealed, do so, at the same time make a
complete record of the transaction, as you maybe called upon to explain the
12
presence of your seal, should a discrepancy occur in the actual and supposed
contents of the car at destination.
While car load freight is taken at owner’s risk as to deficiency in weight
or measure, (except such as may arise from collision, or running off track)
it would be an inexcusable error to receipt for and way-bill a car load of
freight, such as grain, without first carefully examining the same to see that
no mixed grain or contraband freight has been smuggled into the car; also
if bill of lading reads say, “ forty thousand of wheat,” see that the wheat is
up to the proper line in the car, and if same falls far below, such notation
should appear on bill of lading, and also on way-bill.
Hay should not be transported on flat cars upon any condition; when
shipped in box cars it should be entirely at owner’s risk, and no car so
loaded should go forward until inspected, and the possibility of a spark
reaching the hay entirely removed.
Agents have right to refuse for transportation, perishable articles, un¬
less freight on same is prepaid, and in no case advance back charges; and
when such articles are not accepted by consignee, they should be disposed
of at best possible advantage, for, and on account of owner, and an imme¬
diate detailed report of the transaction should be sent to the general
freight agent.
Live stock should be received subject to rules, conditions and terms of
classification, and live stock contract in use; should be loaded and unloaded
by owners at their expense and risk, and carried, accompanied by proper
party, at owner’s risk of all injury to their animals, of whatever kind, except
gross negligence of the company.
Agents should know that stock cars are in proper condition to safely
transport stock, particularly the floor, side doors, and cross bars; count the
stock into the car, seal and cleat the doors, and note on way-bill the num¬
ber of head in each car, adding “more or less.”
Make way-bills plain and explicit; use no abbreviations ; fill all the
blanks in the way bill; be sure to give number and initial of car, name of
consignor and consignee in full. Adhere strictly to billing directions; do
not imagine that the shipper has erred in directions, and attempt to correct
it; if you do, you will likely repent it.
It is well to make bill of lading read, “ shipper’s weight,” or “ shipper’s count.”
Too much care cannot be exercised in receipting for and checking of
freight, both in and out of the warehouse and car. See that you receive no
more nor less than bills call for. If, in checking from car to house, you are
short, or over, make prompt report of same, using every endeavor to locate
the discrepancy. See that consignor’s bill of lading and freight offered
correspond exactly. Description, as “one bundle wheels,” “ one bundle
iron,” “ bundle bed sides,” etc., is not sufficient; always state number of
articles in each bundle. If freight received in rain or snow, chafed or dam¬
aged in any manner, the condition of which is in doubt, make such nota-
13
tion on bill of lading and way-bill. Never allow freight to be checked into or
out of warehouse by draymen. These rules, strictly adhered to, would
void thousands of dollars, annually, of claims against companies, aside
from the annoyance and trouble attending.
Examine the condition of every car before loading. Cars with leaky
roofs should not be loaded with property liable to damage or injury by wa¬
ter. Cars which have been used for stock, coal, or anything winch has left
them unclean, should be thoroughly cleansed before loading with merchan¬
dise or grain. Look carefully for coal oil or grease, which may have satu¬
rated the floor or sides of the car ; avoid loading in such cars property, such
as flour, or anything in sacks, bales, or drygoods in boxes, which is liable
to damage by coming in contact with parts of the car which have been so
saturated. See that the doors at sides and ends are in condition for fast¬
ening.
Goods should not be mixed in loading. Each lot must be kept separate.
If you load goods in a car for more than one station, the goods to be un¬
loaded first should be put in the car last. Keep the goods for each sfation
together and each lot of goods by itself. See that all goods in your charge
are carefully handled and loaded in such manner that no damage may occur
in transit by leakage of liquids, chafing of bales, etc. Casks containing
oils (other than coal), turpentine, tar, molasses or liquors should be loaded
on the bilge, and carefully blocked, bung wp. Place them as far as possible
from other freight likely to sustain damage by any leakage that may occur
in transit.
Agents should use great care in the handling and loading of coal oil,
and under no circumstances should it be loaded with other freight that can
be damaged by it. So far as practicable it should be loaded in stock cars.
Kerosene, coal oil, naphtha, benzole, or any other like substance of a
combustible nature should neither be loaded nor unloaded through freight
houses except in day time. Lights should not, under any circumstances,
be allowed near the packages and such freight should be taken away oy
consignees immediately upon its arrival.
Agents should in no instance load freight for way stations into cars
leaded with through freight, nor load nor allow to be loaded, a package of
any kind of merchandise into cars loaded with grain'in bulk, or any cars
consigned to the elevator. Particular attention should be paid to this.
Hides, pelts, etc., should only be received for shipment under the fol¬
lowing rules: Every bundle of dry hides, sheep pelts, should be plainly
marked with black paint, giving consignee and destination. Each and every
green hide should be marked, either with a leather tag giving full consign¬
ment or tin tag stamped with deliverer’s private mark or number.
Agents should refuse to receive or receipt for hides, pelts, etc., not
marked in accordance with these instructions.
When way-billing perishable property, agents should be particular to
note on the face of the way-bill, also on the back, the words “Perishable
14
Property,” so that the attention of both conductor and receiving agent
will be promptly called to the character of that particular property. This
notation will not be necessary when the company provides a special form of
way bills to be used way-billing perishable freight.
Before loading live stock, examine the cars and see that the cross bars
and doors are in proper order. Count the stock as it is being loaded so as
to know the number of animals loaded into each car. While rules require
the owner to load and unload his stock, agents should render all the assist¬
ance they can, consistent with their other duties. See that the cross bars are
in their proper places and the doors securely fastened before the cars leave
the station. Two or more kinds of stock should not be loaded in same car
without special authority from the general freight agent.
Property which the agent does, not consider worth charges for freight
at a forced sale should not be received for transportation unless freight on
same is prepaid.
Shipment of H. H. goods, etc., should not be received for shipment be¬
yond the line on which it originates unless all charges are prepaid to des¬
tination.
Agents should in no case deliver any goods to consignee until receipt
for same has been taken and should not deliver a part of a consignment of
goods without first collecting charges on the whole.
HOW TO PREPARE CLAIMS FOR EXAMINATION AT THE GENERAL
FREIGHT OR CLAIM OFFICE.
No over charges, drawbacks, or damages to freight should be paid by
agents in absence of special authority, but a claim for the same with full
particulars should be sent to the general freight agent for his approval
and adjustment.
FOR OVERCHARGES IN RATE.
Agents should require claimants to furnish paid freight bills, bills of
claims, original bills of lading, and attach thereto copies of way-bills to
their stations. When special contracts are claimed, and are not stated in
bills of lading, claimants are required to obtain certified copy of such con¬
tract from the agent with whom the contract was made, and attach this to claim.
Claims for overcharge in local rates should be submitted with a refer¬
ence to that part of a local tariff which refers to claims.
15
FOE OVEECHAEGES IN WEIGHT, COUNT, OE MEASUEEMENT.
Agents should submit original bills of lading, paid freight bills, and
bills of claims, with copies of way-bills for such goods to their stations, ac¬
companied by the original invoices of the articles claimed overcharged, or
certified copies of the same. When invoice weights cannot be obtained, or
when they have no bearing on the claim, it is always desirable that the agent
certify to the correct weight, count, or measurement, as ascertained by actual
test. It is desirable that when an apparent overcharge in weight occurs,
agents having scales should test the weight before delivery of the article,
and preserve a record of the same to be submitted with the claim.
FOE LOSS OE DAMAGE.
In cases of partial loss or of damage apparent upon unloading, agents
should make a thorough examination of the condition of packages, extent
of loss or damage, and the probable causes of the same, taking care to count ,
weigh or measure the articles, carefully preserving a record thereof, with a
view to facilitate an accurate and just settlement of claims likely to arise therefrom.
In cases of concealed loss or damage to goods delivered in an apparent
good order, claimants should be required to make their claims immediately,
and support them, if entertained at all, by the affidavits of both forwarder
and receiver as to quality, condition of the contents previous and subse¬
quent to shipment, by an appraisement made by not less than two disinter¬
ested parties, or by both, if considered desirable.
The company reserves the right to take for its own use articles in which
damages are claimed upon payment of the invoice price, with freight, if
freight has been paid by claimants, added.
When total damage is claimed agents should procure prompt estimates
of the value of the property, which should be submitted with other neces¬
sary papers.
Particular care and promptness should be shown in the case of damage
to perishable articles, and when any damage can be lessened by attention
and care, it should be promptly given.
Agents should in all cases make prompt and personal examination, sub¬
mitting full report of the same accompanied by bill of claim, original bill of
lading, original or certified copy of invoice, and copy of way bill; also a
statement of condition of car, of seal, nature and apparent cause of damage,
or loss, when car was received, when seals cut, when unloaded, if freight
taken out of the car without intermission, how receipted for, what chance
there was for loss or damage at unloading point, and all other items of in¬
formation that may promote speedy and proper adjustment.
If parties present bills of lading for articles billed but never received,
gents should forward bill of lading thereof with original or certified copy
of invoice.
16
LEAKAGE.
Paid freight bills, original bills of lading, gauger’s certificates, both pre¬
vious and subsequent to shipment, original or certified copies of invoices,
copy of the way-bill for freight to the station, reports showing by whom and
how receipted, must always be submitted with claims of this character.
As this class of claims is only entertained when there is evidence of
neglect or bad handling by the carriers, agents should give special attention
to such packages when received at their station and delivered to consignee,
with a view to ascertain the nature and the probable cause of damage to
packages or possible original defects, or bad cooperage in them.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
As almost all claims must necessarily require various explanations it is
desirable that the agents, to whom the claims are presented, submit them to
the general freight office or claim office as the case may be, as complete as
possible with full notations from other agents, thereby avoiding unnecessary
delay in the adjustment of claims.
As soon as freight is unloaded it should be taken off the platforms. No
freight should be piled closer than 7 feet of nearest rail on the sidings.
Freight should not be received for storage or await shipping or reshipping
directions, but should in every case be ready for shipment and be shipped
with the least possible delay. In absence of special instructions freight
should have precedence of movement in the following order:—viz.: Live
stock, perishable freight, in order of its perishableness, fast freight, general
merchandise, grain, cotton, coal, pig iron. Less important freight always
gives way to the more important.
BONDED FREIGHT.
A line having been “Bonded” as a common carrier of imported mer¬
chandise in bond, is governed by the following rules in handling freight.
Less than Cae Loads.—All packages containing bonded merchandise
must be strapped, corded, and sealed with customs seals; also all casks con¬
taining liquors of any kind must have bungs and other openings properly
sealed. Great care must be taken to observe that all are in proper condition
and not disturbed or broken in transit. Freight not properly strapped,
corded and sealed will not be received.
Cae Loads.—Cars containing bonded freight will not be received except
under customs seals, and must go through to destination without transfer.
Customs seals must in no case be broken or disturbed except under super¬
vision of a duly authorized customs officer, except when in case of a wreck
where cars must be ditched and it becomes imperatively necessary, when
17
tile conductor of train may break seals and transfer property, making affi¬
davit of the facts as also to the checking and condition of the property.
Should the cars become disabled or for other reasons it becomes necessary
to make transfer, station agents should report it at once to the general office,
when the customs officer will be sent to supervise the breaking of the seals and the checking of property and reseal the car.
Billing.—Transfer sheets or shipping bills must in all cases be accom¬
panied by a customs manifest, and which must agree in every particular as
to consignor, consignee, marks, etc., with the billing. This customs mani¬
fest must accompany the way-bill, and both must in all cases go with the
car. Way-bills must also have notations showing what papers are attached,
as also noted inside and outside “Bonded Freight.” Upon arrival of bond¬
ed freight at destination, the agent of the company will report the arrival of
such freight to the customs officer, with the customs manifest, and will make
delivery of the freight to him and take his receipt in regular form, which
will be kept on file in his “agent’s office” as a part of the records. Delivery
will in no case be made to consignee until you have the customs officer’s receipt and order for delivery.
LEGAL ADVICE.
The following information is furnished agents for their use in cases
where attempt is made to take goods out of the company’s possession by legal process:
First.—The company has lien for freight charges on all goods carried by
it, and cannot be compelled by law to relinquish its possession until its
reasonable freight and all back charges are paid. The agent should demand
payment of freight, and refuse to give the goods up until all payment of
freight and back charges has been made; if, after he does this, the officer in
violation of the law, takes the goods by force, and will not pay freight, the
claim and lien on goods can be made good in the courts.
Second.—Agents cannot be required to open their warehouses at mid¬
night, or any other unusual hour, but they should not in any manner place
obstacles in the way of an officer executing process; same facilities should
be given an officer in the execution of process as are afforded the general
community for transaction of ordinary business. The officer has a right,
under his process, to seize goods, subject to payment of company charges
first, the agent notifying all parties of the fact at once.
Third.—Any consignor, being the vendor of the goods, has the right to
reclaim and stop them in transit and before their delivery to consignee, and
in cases where goods are fraudulently obtained, or when consignee, after
the sale, becomes known to be insolvent, a demand for the goods of the
agent is sufficient. If, after such demand, the company voluntarily delivers
the goods to any one else, or refuses to deliver them to consignor, upon
18
tender of all charges for transportation, a “right of action” will lie against
the company. The fact that goods have been forwarded by several different
carriers does not alter the rule or vary the responsibility of the company.
When goods are carried over several different lines, the right of stop¬
page in transit continues as long as the voyage lasts, or until they reach the
hands of the party who is to receive the goods for consignee as his agent,
or in that capacity has the right to give them a new destination, or to keep
them until consignee can send for or dispose of them. In such case the law
considers the right of stoppage at an end.
Fourth.—Whenever goods are attached, replevined or seized on execu¬
tion, the company’cannot refuse to deliver, after payment of charges, as it is
always ample^defense to show goods have been taken from it by legal process.
The law requires in such cases that the company, without delay shall
notify, by mail or in person, the consignor and consignee as well as any
other persons claiming an interest on the goods that have been taken, and
demanding of them that they enforce and protect their individual rights in
the action wherein the goods were seized.
In all cases where goods are replevined by consignee or other persons
without first paying all freight and back charges, the action cannot be main¬
tained and j the agent'should within 24 hours give the officer sufficient re -
delivery bond and retake possession of the goods immediately, report the
same to the general freight agent by wire and letter, giving every particular
of the case.
A form for the above note is appended, and in all cases agents should
use this form in giving prompt notice to parties as above stated.
19
FORM OF NOTICE.
Station,.188....
To
Sir:
You are liereby notified that the following goods ,to wit:
....consigned by....of.
to.of...and received by this company
from.on the.day of....188...have
hem seized by...at the suit of....against
said.in a certain action pending before..
in and for the.of.. in...county
of..., and we demand that you take such steps to
enforce and protect your rights in said action as to you
may seem proper.
Agent. R. M.
20
MISCELLANEOUS.
The attention of agents is called to Section 3324 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States, which is as follows:
“Every person who empties or draws off, or causes to be emptied or drawn off, any distilled spirits from a cask or package bearing any mark, brand, or stamp required by law, shall, at the time of emptying such cask or package, efface and obliterate said mark, stamp, or brand. Every such cask or package from which said mark, brand, and stamp, is not effaced and obliterated as herein required, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized by any officer of internal revenue wherever found; and every railroad company or other transportation company or person who receives or transports, or has in possession with intent to transport, or with intent to cause or procure to be transported any such empty cask or package, or any part thereof, having thereon any brand, mark, or stamp, required by law to be placed on any^cask or package containing distilled spirits, shall forfeit three hundred dodlars for each such cask or package, or any part thereof, so received or transported or had in possession with the intent aforesaid; and any boat, railroad car, cart, dray, wagon, or other vehicle, and all horses or other animals used in carrying or transporting the same, shall be forfeited to the United States. Every person who fails to efface and obliterate said mark, stamp, or brand, at the time of emptying such cask or package, or who receives any such cask or package, or any part thereof, with the intent aforesaid, or who transports the same, knowingly aids or assists therein, or who removes any stamp provided by law from any cask or pack¬ age containing or which had contained distilled spirits, without defacing and destroying the same at the time of such removal, or who aids or assists therein, or who has in his possession any such stamp so removed as afore¬ said, or has in his possession any cancelled stamp, or any stamp which has been used, or which purports to have been used, upon any cask or package of distilled spirits, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $10,000, and imprisoned not less than one year nor more than five years.”
Section 12 of the Act of March 1st, 1879, applies the provisions and pen¬ alties of Section 3324 to casks and packages which have contained imported spirits.
Agents should not receive for transportation or forward empty casks,
or empty packages of any kind, without their having the United States
revenue stamps or brands entirely removed or obliterated. If such empty
casks or empty packages are received for transportation, the agent should
carefully examine the same, and if the revenue stamps or brands have not
been removed or obliterated, it is the duty of the agent to remove or oblit¬
erate such stamps or brands before the empty casks or packages are for¬
warded. Agents receiving such empty casks or packages will also examine
the same before delivery to consignees, to see that the above has been com¬
plied with, and should report all deviations to the freight department.
Also in shipping full packages, agents should see that the proper stamps
required by the revenue laws of the United States are affixed in a legal man¬
ner. Each cask or package must be stamped with the particular stamp re¬
quired by law according to the size of the package. For instance, with ref¬
erence to malt liquors, a quarter-cask must have one “quarter-cask” stamp
on it and not two “eighth-cask” stamps. The regular stamp must be a full
21
quarter stamp, as a violation of this regulation makes the property itself
liable to seizure, and also all cars transporting it. In all these things it is
necessary to comply fully with the letter of the law. Agents at point of de¬
livery should promptly report to the freight department any neglect of
these orders, with full particulars, as they are not optional but arbitrary.
Attention is also particularly called to the following:—
Section 3343, B. S.
“Whenever any brewer, cartman, agent for transportation, or other person sells, removes, receives, or purchases, or in any way aids in the sale, removal, receipt, or purchase, of any fermented liquor contained in any hogshead, barrel, keg, or other vessel from any brewery or brewery ware¬ house, upon which the stamp or permit, in case of removal, required by law, has not been affixed, or on which a false or fraudulent stamp, or permit, in case of removal, is affixed, with knowledge that it is such, or on which a stamp, or permit, in case of removal, once canceled is used a second time, he shall be fined one hundred dollars and imprisoned for not more than one year.”
To obey orders of superior officers, strictly and without question, is the
first duty of all employes.
Avoid the use of telegraph when a letter will answer the purpose. The
use of the wire should be confined to the necessities — when time is a ne¬
cessary factor in a correspondence.
In all transactions see that your position is fully understood. Often the
best motives are erroneously construed and an improper judgment ignor¬
antly executed. In writing an officer of the company, state facts in a clear, distinct, in¬
telligent manner; avoid repeating, commenting, or supposing. While your
time to enlarge upon a subject, and present matters in their minutest detail,
may be unlimited, his to read, is as a rule, inadequate.
The particulars of an accident should never be made the subject of con¬
versation with the public, nor with operators over the wire; a violation of
this rule usually has a tendency to effect the interests of the company, espe¬
cially if accident resulted in personal injury. Keep yourself, office and surroundings in such a condition that an un¬
expected visit from an official will not provoke an embarrassment upon your
part, nor criticism upon his. The tidy waiting-room, courteous treatment to the traveler, prompt at¬
tention to the wishes of the public, the many little courtesies, easily ex¬
pended and always appreciated, not only reflect credit upon yourself, but
speak volumes in the management of the road.
Several railway corporations have instructed their employes, under
penalty of dismissal, to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors, and
22
the frequenting of drinking places, when off, as well as on, duty. That this
is a move in the proper direction no one will question. It is to be regretted
that such action became necessary, and while it will have a tendency to
weed out, to a certain extent, a class found in all vocations of life, the good,
true and noble upon whom the moral standard of the system depends have
no reason to become discouraged ; quite the contrary. One cannot always
be a hero, but one can always be a man.
The following rules will enable agents to ascertain, as near as possible,
the quantity of bulk grain in a car. First, level the top of the grain as
evenly as possible, and use the following rules-:
To Measube Cobn.—Multiply the length, width and height in inches
together, and divide the product by 38.4; the result of which will give the
weight of corn in the car, in pounds.
To Measube Oats.—Multiply length, width, and height of grain in
inches together, and divide the product by 67.2; the result will be the
number of pounds in weight.
To Measube Wheat.—The inches in length, width and height should
be multiplied as before, the product being divided by 36; the result of
which will be, with the addition of four pounds to every thousand pounds?
the weight contained in the car.
To bind the Quantity of Sjieeled Coen in a Ceib.—Measure the
length, breadth, and height of crib, inside the rail; multiply them together
and divide by two; the result is the number of bushels of shelled corn in
the crib.
OFFICIAL BONDS. It is a fact now generally known, that the railway companies are taking
steps to insure the honesty of their employes, which not only dispenses
with much trouble to the corporations, but its influence with the employe
is good, and has a tendency to improve the service, and raise the moral
standard of the official. Hitherto all officials, whose duties have been in
whole or part of a"financial nature, have usually given a bond signed by one
or more responsible parties. In case the bonds were forfeited, the compa¬
nies have often found it wiser to compromise than to take action aginst the
bondsmen. The giving of a bond has many other objectionable features,
not only to the company, but to the individual. In order to obviate these
difficulties, a large number of the companies now have recourse to the dif¬
ferent guarantee companies which are located in this country and Canada.
In all positions of trust the holder gives a personal security. The railway
company names the amount of the bond, which the guarantee company ac¬
cepts on a certain condition. The one insuring pays three-fourths of one per
<-ent. per annum on the amount stipulated in the bond. Thus, a party giving
23
security to the amount of one thousand dollars is assessed seven dollars and
fifty cents per year. In some cases this premium is paid by the company,
though generally by the party insuring. This system is becoming popular
with the railway company and employe alike. The applicant for guarantee
whose character is above reproach can afford to have the same investigated-
The enemies of the new system are those in whose characters are wanting the elements of men.
THE OPERATOR.
It is absolutely important that he be impressed with the sense of re¬
sponsibility resting upon him. His apprenticeship and training should be
such as to assure this as far as possible.
The most skilled train dispatcher, whose thoughts and actions must
necessarily be quick, cannot successfully direct the movements of the train,
without the undivided attention of the vigilant operator. Very few seem
to realize the weight of responsibility resting upon a train dispatcher.
Not only must he keep a watch over one train which is speeding along at
the rate of thirty-five or forty miles an hour, bearing its precious freight of
human lives, but he must follow the complicated movements of many other
trains, with their lives and property, which a blunder or inaccuracy of his
would hurl to death and ruin. Eealizing the truth of this, how vastly im¬
portant that operators, whose work is more exacting than any other calling,
should be men of unclouded character, of principles well defined, self-sac¬
rificing, and absolutely temperate. The failure of a superior officer to rec¬
ognize such sterling qualities when found in the rank and file of his sub¬
ordinates, often generates an indifference. One encouraging word from a
superintendent ignites anew the spirit of pride often lying dormant in the
breast of the liberty loving employe—that feeling so much desired, yet sel¬
dom experienced.
The greatest and most successful railway managers of to-day, have,
with rare exceptions, risen from the ranks. Let aspiring young men who
are still at the foot of the ladder take courage. In the vast railway develop¬
ment sure to take place the next ten years, the most flattering possibilities
are presented.
24
TABLE.—Showing rate in cents per 100 tbs., with equivalent rate in cents
per bushel.
1 F
reig
ht.
I
per
100.
Wheat.
60
lbs.
Co
rn.
56 l
bs.
Oats
. 32
lb
s.
Barl
ey.
48 l
bs.
Fre
ight,
per
100.
Wheat.
6
01
bs.
Co
rn.
56 l
bs.
Oats
. 32
lbs.
Barl
ey.
48 l
bs.
1 E
reig
ht.
per
100.
Wh
eat.
60
lb
s.
Co
rn.
56 l
bs.
CD %
Og*
Barl
ey
. 48 l
bs.
1 .6 .6 .3 .5 35 21.0 19.6 11.2 16.8 69 41.4 38.6 22.1 33.1 2 1.2 1.1 .6 1.0 36 21.6 20.2 11.5 17.3 70 42.0 39.2 22.4 33.6 3 1.8 1.7 1.0 1.4 37 22.2 20.7 11.8 17.8 71 42.6 39.8 22.7 34.1 4 2.4 2.2 1.3 ■ 1.9 38 22.8 21.3 12.2 18.2 72 43.2 40.3 23.0 34.6 5 3.0 2.8 1.6 2.4 39 23.4 21.8 12.5 18.7 73 43.8 40.9 23.4 35.0 6 3.6 3.4 1.9 2.9 40 24.0 22.4 12.8 19.2 74 44.4 41.4 23.7 35.5 7 4.2 3.9 2.2 3.4 41 24.6 23.0 13.1 19.7 75 45.0 42.0 24.0 36.0 8 4.8 4.5 2.6 3.8 42 25.2 23.5 13.4 20.2 76 45.6 42.6 24.3 36.5 9 5.4 5.0 2.9 4.3 43 25.8 24.1 13.8 20.6 77 46.2 43.1 24.6 37.0
10 6.0 5.6 3.2 4.8 44 26.4 24.6 14.1 21.1 78 46.8 43.7 25.0 37.4 11 6 6 6.2 3.5 5.3 45 27.0 25.2 14.4 21.6 79 47.4 44.2 25.3 38.0 12 7.2 6.7 3.8 5.8 46 27.6 25.8 14.7 22.1 80 48.0 44.8 25.6 38.4 13 7.8 7.3 4.2 6.2 47 28.2 26.3 15.0 22.6 81 48.6 45 4 25.9 38.9 14 8.4 7.8 4.5 6.7 48 28.8 26.9 15.4 23.0 82 49.2 45.9 26.2 39.4 15 9.0 8.4 4.8 7.2 49 29.4 27.4 15.7 23.5 83 49.8 46.5 26.6 39.8 16 9.6 9.0 5.1 7.7 50 30.0 28.0 16.0 24.0 84 50.4 47.0 26.9 40.3 17 10.2 9.5 5.4 8.2 51 30.6 28.6 16.3 24.5 85 51.0 47.6 27.2 40.8 18 10.8 10.1 5.8 8.6 52 31.2 29.1 16.6 25.0 86 51.6 48.2 27.5 41.3 19 11.4 10.6 6.1 9.1 53 31.8 29.7 17.0 25.4 87 52.2 48.7 27.8 41.8 20 12.0 11.2 6.4 9.6 54 32.4 30.2 17.3 25.9 88 52.8 49.3 28.2 42.2 21 12.6 11.8 6.7 10.1 55 33.0 30.8 17.6 26.4 89 53.4 49.8 28.5 42.7 22 13.2 12.3 7.0 10.6 56 33.6 31.4 17.9 26.9 90 54.0 50.4 28.8 43.2 23 13.8 12.9 7.4 110 57 34.2 31.9 18.2 27.4 91 54.6 51.0 29.1 43 7 24 14.4 13.4 7.7 11.5 58 34.8 32.5 18.6 27.9 92 55.2 51.5 29.4 44.2 25 15.0 14.0 8.0 12.0 59 35.4 33.0 18.9 28.3 93 55.8 52.1 29.8 44.6 26 15.6 14.6 8.3 12.5 60 36.0 33.6 19.2 28.8 94 56.4 52.6 30.1 45.1 27 16.2 15.1 8.6 13.0 61 36.6 34.2 19.5 29.3 95 57.0 53.2 30.4 45.6 28 16.8 15.7 90 13.4 62 37.2 34.7 19.8 29.8 96 57.6 53.8 30.7 46.1 29 17.4 16.2 9.2 13.9 63 37.8 35.3 20.2 30.2 97 58.2 54.3 31.0 46.6 30 18.0 16.8 9.6 14.4 64 38.4 35.8 20.5 30.7 98 58.8 54.9 31.4 47.0 31 18.6 17.4 9.9 14.9 65 39.0 36.4 20.8 31.2 99 59.4 55.4 31.7 47.5 32 19.2 17.9 10.2 15.4 66 39.6 37.0 21.1 31.7 100 60.0 56.0 32.0 48.0 33 19 8 18.5 10.6 15.8 67 40.2 37.5 21.4 32.2 I — _ — __ _#_
34 20.4 19.0 10.9 16 3 1 68 40.8 1 38.1 21.8 32.7 |1 - — -
25
TABLE.—Showing rate in cents per bushel, with equivalent rates in
cents per 100 lbs.
Grain. Cents per bush.
Wheat. Per 100 lbs.
60 lbs.to bushel.
Corn. Per 100 lbs.
56lbs.to bushel.
Barley. Per 100 lbs.
48 lbs.to bushel.
Oats. Per 100 lbs.
34 lbs.to bushel.
Oats. Per 100 lbs.
32 lbs.to bushel.
Cts. lOOtbs. Cts. lOOths. Cts. lOOths. Cts. lOOths. Cts. lOOths.
1 1 66 1 78 2 08 2 94 3 12 1/ 2 50 2 67 3 12 4 41 4 68 2 3 34 3 57 4 17 5 88 6 24 2/ 4 17 4 47 5 21 7 35 7 81 3 5 00 5 36 6 25 8 82 9 38 3/ 5 83 6 25 7 29 10 29 10 94 4 6 67 7 14 8 33 11 76 12 50 4/ 7 50 8 03 9 37 13 23 14 06 5 8 34 8 93 10 41 14 70 15 62 5*4 9 17 9 82 11 46 16 18 17 18 6 10 00 10 71 12 50 18 75 6*4 10 83 11 60 13 54 19 11 20 31 7 11 67 12 50 14 58 20 59 21 87 7*4 12 50 13 39 15 62 22 06 23 44 8 13 34 14 28 16 67 23 53 25 00 8*4 14 17 15 18 17 71 25 00 26 56 9 15 00 16 06 18 75 26 47 28 12 9*4 15 83 16 96 19 79 27 94 29 69
10 16 67 17 86 20 83 29 41 31 25 io*4 17 50 18 75 21 87 30 88 32 81 n 18 34 19 64 22 91 32 35 34 37 11*4 19 17 20 53 23 96 33 82 35 94 12 20 00 21 42 25 00 35 29 37 50 18*4 20 83 22 32 26 04 36 76 39 06 13 21 67 23 21 27 08 38 23 40 62 13*4 22 50 24 10 28 12 39 71 42 19 14 23 34 25 00 29 16 41 18 43 75 14*4 24 17 25 89 30 20 42 64 45 31 15 25 00 26 78 31 25 44 11 46 87 15/2 25 83 27 67 32 29 45 59 48 43 16 26 67 28 57 33 33 47 06 50 00 16/2 27 50 29 46 34 37 48 53 51 56 17 28 34 30 35 35 41 50 00 53 12 17/2 29 17 31 25 36 46 51 47 54 68 18 30 00 32 14 37 50 52 94 56 25 18*4 30 83 33 03 38 54 54 41 57 81 19 31 67 33 93 39 58 55 88 59 37 19/2 32 50 34 82 40 62 57 35 60 93 20 33 34 35 71 41 67 58 82 62 50 20 *4 34 17 36 60 42 71 60 29 64 06 21 35 00 37 50 43 75 61 76 65 62
21*4 35 83 38 39 44 79 63 23 67 19 22 36 67 39 28 45 83 64 70 68 75 22*4 37 50 40 18 46 87 66 18 70 31 23 38 34 41 07 47 91 67 64 71 87 23*4 39 17 41 96 48 96 69 11 73 43 24 40 00 42 86 50 00 70 59 75 00
24*4 40 83 43 75 51 04 72 06 76 56 25 41 67 44 64 52 08 73 53 78 12 25 X 42 50 45 53 53 12 75 00 79 68 26 43 34 46 42 54 16 76 47 81 25
26/ 44 17 47 32 55 20 77 94 82 81 27 45 00 48 21 56 25 79 41 84 37 27/ 45 83 49 10 57 29 80 88 85 93 28 46 67 50 00 58 33 82 35 87 50 28/ 47 50 50 89 59 37 83 82 89 06 29 48 34 51 78 60 41 85 29 90 62 29/ 49 17 52 67 61 46 86 76 92 18 30 50 00 53 57 62 50 88 23 93 75
26
TABLE OF ESTIMATED WEIGHTS.
TO BE USED ONLY WHEN THE ACTUAL WEIGHT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED.
Pounds.
Acid per carboy. 230
Alcohol, per barrel. 100
Ale, Beer, or Porter, per barrel. 330
Ale, Beer, or Porter, per half-barrel. 170
Ale, Beer, or Porter, per quarter-barrel.. 90
Ale, Beer, or Porter, per one-sixth barrel. 70
Apples, dried, per barrel. 200
Apples, dried, in sugar barrels. 300
Apples, green, per barrel.*. 150
Apples, green, per bushel. 50
Ashes, pot or pearl, per barrel. 450
Bacon, per hogshead. 1000
Bacon, per barrel. 330
Barley, per bushel. 48
Bark, per cord. 2000
Brick, common, each. 5
Brick, pressed, each. 7
Brick, fire. 7
Beans, dried, per bushel . 60
Beef, salted, per barrel. 330
Brandy, per barrel. 400
Brooms, per dozen. 30
Buckwheat, per bushel*.. 50
Cakes, per barrel.. 100
Carrots, per barrel.. 150
Cement, per barrel. 300
Charcoal, per bushel. 22
Cider, per barrel. 400
Clams, per barrel. 250
Clams, per bag. 100
Clothes Pins, per box.'. 30
Clover Seed, per bushel. 64
Coal Oil, per barrel. 400
Coffee, essence, per box. 35
Coke, per bushel. 40
Corn, per bushel. 56
Corn Meal, per barrel. 200
Chocolate, per box. 30
Crackers, per barrel. 100
27
Pounds.
Eggs, per barrel. 180
Empty Barrels, ale, beer, or porter, per barrel. 90
Empty Barrels, ale, beer, or porter, per half-barrel. 50
Empty Barrels, ale, beer, or porter, per quarter-barrel. 30
Empty Barrels, ale, beer, or porter, per one-sixtli of a barrel. 20 Empty Barrels, flour, per barrel. 20
Empty Barrels, oil, per barrel. 60
Empty Barrels, truck, per barrel. 20
Empty Barrels, whisky, per barrel. 60
Empty Kegs, nail, per keg. 6
Empty Kegs, powder, per keg. 4
Fish, salt, per barrel. 300
Fish, salt, per half-barrel. 150
Fish, salt, per quarter-barrel.,. 75
Fish, salt, per one-eighth of a barrel or kit. 35
Flaxseed, per bushel. 56
Flour, per barrel. 200
Grain, Brewers’, per bushel. 50
Grass Seeds, Timothy and Light Grass Seeds, per bushel. 45
Highwines, per barrel. 400
Ice, per bushel. 80
Lard Oil, per barrel. 400 Lime, land, per bushel. 80
Lime, per barrel. 230
Linseed Oil, per barrel... 400
Lumber:— Pine, Hemlock, Spruce, or Poplar, green, per 1000 feet, B. M. 4000
Pine, Hemlock, Spruce, or Poplar, partially dry, per 1000 feet, B. M 3000
Pine, Hemlock, Spruce, or Poplar, dry, per 1000 feet, B. M. 2000
Cherry, Ash, Yellow^ Pine, Maple, green, per 1000 feet, B. M. 4500
Cherry, Ash, Yellow Pine, Maple, dry, per 1000 feet, B. M. 3500
Oak, Walnut, Hickory, green, per 1000 feet, B. M. 6000
Oak, Walnut, Hickory, dry, per 1000 feet, B. M. 5000
Lath, plastering, per thousand. 500
Lath, shingling, per thousand lineal feet.- 700
Pickets, per thousand .. .. 2500
Shingles, cedar, long, per thousand. . 1400
Shingles, pine, per thousand. 1000 Shingles, bunched, per thousand. 800
28
Pounds.
Malt, barley, per bushel... 35
Malt, dry or spent, Brewers’ Grain, per bushel. 50
Malt, rye, per bushel. 40
Meat, salted, per barrel. 330
Molasses, per barrel. 570
Nails, per keg. 100
Oatmeal, per barrel. 220
Oats, per bushel. 32
Onions, per bushel. 56
Oranges and lemons, per box. 75
Oysters, per barrel. 250
Oysters, per sack. 200
Pork, per barrel...:. 330
Potatoes, per barrel. .s...... 180
Potatoes, per bushel. 60
Potatoes, sweet, per barrel. 160
Eye, per bushel. 56
Salt, per barrel. 300 Salt, Ashton, per sack. 225
Salt, coarse, per bushel. 70
Salt, ground, per sack. 200 Sand, per barrel. 450
Shot, per bag. 25
Stone, undressed, per cubic foot.7. 160
Turnips, per barrel. 180
Turnips, per bushel. 56
Turpentine, per barrel. 350
Yarnish, per barrel. 400
Vinegar, per barrel. 400
Wheat, per bushel. 60
Whiskey and Highwines, per barrel. 400
Wood, hickory, per cord. 4800
29
LIME, COAL AND WOOD.
Lime and Coal, per bushel.
Coke, per bushel.
Wood, soft, green, per cord.
Wood, soft, dry, per cord.
Wood, hard, green, per cord.
Wood, hard, dry, per cord.
Pounds.
80
40
. 3500
. 3000
. 4500
. 3500
SAND, STONE, ETC.
Sand, per cubic yard. 3000
Gravel, per cubic yard... 3200
Stone, undressed, per cubic yard. 4000
Stone, undressed, per perch. 3800
Marble, per cubic foot.. 165
Slate, per cubic foot. 165
Ice, per cubic foot. . 62J
Apples, dried.
Apples, green.
Barley.
Beans, white.
Beans, Castor.
Bran. Buckwheat.
Charcoal.
Coal.
Coke. Corn, shelled.
Corn, in ear.
Corn Meal.
Flaxseed..
Grass Seed, Blue.
Grass Seed, Clover ....
Grass Seed, Hungarian
Grass Seed, Millet.
Grass Seed, Orchard ..
Grass Seed, Bed Top .
Grass Seed, Timothy.
Hemp Seed.
Lime.
Malt, Barley.
Malt, Bye.
24 lbs. per
56 “ «
48
60 “ “ 46 “ “
20 “ “
52 “ “
22
80
40
56
70
48
56
14
60 45
45
14
14
45
44
80
38
35
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
barrel. 66
66
66
66
66
66
66
6 .
66
- . 66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
30
Oats. . 32 lbs. per barrel.
Onions. . 60 “ 4 4 «
Peaches, Dried. . 33 4 4 4 4
Peas. . 60 44 “ 44
Plastering Hair. . 8 “ « «
Potatoes, Common. . 60 4 4 4 4 4 4
Potatoes, Sweet .. ...... 55 * 4 4 4
Pye. . 56 a 4 4
Salt. . 56 £%' 44 44
Ship Stuff. .35 “ 4 4
Turnips . . 56 • 4 <e
Wheat. . 60 “ «
Alcohol. .380 < t barrel.
Ale, Beer and Porter. .330 4 4 “ 44
Ale, Beer and Porter. .175 44 4 4 barrel. Ale, Beer and Porter. .100 4 4 44 i-barrel. Apples, Green. .150 44
*t barrel. Beef. .330 “ 4 4 ,4 4
Cider.!... .400 44 4 4
Corn Meal. .220 4 4 4 4
Eggs. .200 44 “
Pish. .300 “ 4 4 44
Pish. .160 44 44 ^-barrel. Pish. .80 44 44 i-barrel. Fish . * . 40 44 44 kit. Flour. .200 44 4 4 barrel. Highwines. .380 44 44 44
Liquors, not otherwise specified. .. .400 44 4 4 * 44
Molasses. .575 44 4 4 44
Oil, Coal. .380 44 44 44
Pork. .330 4 4 44 44
Potatoes. .180 44 44 44
Salt, Fine. .300 44 4 4 44
Salt, Coarse. .350 4 4 44 4 4
Vinegar. .400 44 44 “
Water Lime.. .300 44 44 44
Whisky. .380 44 44 44
One ton is 2,000 lbs. One cord is 128 cubic feet.
31
Amount of material necessary in constructing one mile of track, allow¬
ing for loss and waste incident to haste in construction:
If 471b. rail... If 56 lb. rail.. If 60 lb. rail.
. 73 5-7 tons ..88 tons
Length of
Rail
Number
Splices
1 Number
| Bolts & Nuts
Ties... Spikes, %.... Spikes, full. Splices. Bolts, Hex.. . . Bolts, common. Nut locks, Verona. Wfl.shp.rs
. 4,500 lbs
. 6,000 lbs
. 1,100 lbs
. 1,325 lbs
. 1,420 lbs SO lha
30 feet
28 feet
27 feet
25 feet
24 feet
704
754
782
844
880
1,408
1,508
1,564
1,6S8
1,760
To calculate tlie number of gross tons of rails for a mile of track, mul¬
tiply the weiglit of the rail per yard by one and four-sevenths (1 4-7), and
the product will be the exact weight in tons per mile. Take, for instance,
a 50 lb. rail: 50x1 4»-7 equals 78 4-7 tons per mile; or take a 56 lb. rail: 56x1 4-7
equals 88 tons per mile.
Distance
Between Ties.
Number of
Spikes
Weight of
Spikes
Number Kegs
150 lbs. each
Using Ties 24 inch centers. 11,254 40 kegs
Using Ties 26 inch centers... 10,502 5,625 lbs. 37K* kegs
Using Ties 28 inch centers. 9,812 5,250 lbs. 35 kegs
Using Ties 30 inch centers.. 9,204 4,950 lbs. 33 kegs
The standard spike, 9-16x5| inches runs 280 to the keg of 150 pounds.
All ties should be hewn from sound, live, White Oak, Burr Oak, Post
Oak, Black Walnut, Mulberry, or Coffee Bean timber, they should be eight
(8) feet long when squared at the ends, and the ends should be either
squared or beveled, not less than six (6) nor more than seven (7) inches
thick—hewn straight and smooth, and out of wind, with two hewn parallel
faces of not less than eight (8) inches in width at the narrowest part of each
hewn face. They should be entirely free from rot and rotten knots, free
from splits, shakes, wanes, large and black knots. All bark should be re¬
moved.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT. The reader will observe in the abstract of cases reported, a few conflict¬
ing decisions. These are attributed to the different statutary provisions in
some of the states.
32
Responsible for Reasonable Amount of Baggage.—Common carriers
are only responsible for the loss of a reasonable amount of baggage.—New
Orleans, Jackson and Great Northern R. R. Co. v. Moore 40, Miss. 39, 1886.
A person who, under pretence of having baggage transported places in
the hands of the carrier’s agent, merchandise, jewelry and other valuables,
is guilty of fraud, which releases the carrier from its common law liability.—
Cincin. & Chicago R. R. Co. v. Marcus, 38 Ill. 219, 1885.
Where a railroad company knowingly receives and transports in cars
accompanying its passenger trains, the property of a passenger other than
his baggage it assumes in reference thereto the liability of a common
carrier of merchandise.—Hannibal R. R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wallace 262, 1870.
A railroad company selling through tickets over its own and other
roads, is liable for the safety of baggage to the point of destination.—HI.
Cent. R. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 Ill.,, 33, 1860.
A carrier is not bound to forward goods to a person who claims to be
the consignee, if they are not accompanied with any instruction or bill
of lading, and the claimant produces no authority from the consignor
for their delivery; although they are marked with the initials of the claim¬
ant’s name.—Tenn. v. Western R. R. Co. 102 Mass. 283, 1869.
The right of a carrier to limit its common law liability by contract, if
made fairly and advisedly on behalf of the shipper, cannot be denied; but
the mere fact that the bill of lading given contains a clause exempting the
carrier from loss of the goods by fire, cannot be held conclusive of such a
contract.—Merchant’s Dispatch Transportation Co. v. Leyson, 89 Ill., 43, 1876.
A railway company is not liable for damages resulting from advance¬
ments made upon a bill of lading fraudulently issued by one of its station
agents.—B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Wilkins, 44 Md., 11, 1875.
A railroad company is not bound by the contract of its agent for trans¬
portation beyond the termini of its road, in the absence of express author¬
ity given him in that respect, and where the making of such contracts has
not become an established business of the road by the custom of those hav¬
ing general authority in its management.—Wait v. Albany & Susquehanna
R. R. Co., 5 Lansing (N. Y.), 475, 1871.
Notice to an agent of a corporation relating to any matter of which he
has the management and control, is notice to the corporation.—Pittsburg,
Ft. Wayne & Chicago R. R. Co. v. Ruby, 38 Ind., 294, 1871.
An agent who has been robbed of the money of his principal may show
that banks and other custodians of money usually look to their vaults and
safes for security, and not to the outside fastenings of the buildings.— Wright v. Central R. R. Co., 16 Ga., 38, 1854.
Where a local railroad agent was instructed to remit daily to the head¬
quarters of the company all sums of money received over $10, it was held
that he would be allowed a reasonable time, in view of his other duties, to
33
make his remittance, and not liable for money stolen from him which he
did not receive in time to remit as instructed.—Robinson v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co., 30 la. 401, 1870.
The principal is under an implied obligation to indemnify an innocent
agent for obeying his orders, where the act would have been lawful in res¬
pect to both, if the principal really had the authority which he claimed.
—Howe v. Buffalo, N. Y. and Erie R. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 297, 1867.
A corporation will be affected by the fraudulent conduct of its agents,
in like manner as if such agents had been acting for private employers.
—Nugent v. Cincin., Harrison, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Disney, (Ohio) 302, 1858.
The acceptance of a bill of ^lading binds the shipper and precludes him
from alleging ignorance of its terms.—Werthemer v. Penn. R. R. Co., 1.
Federal Reporter 232, 1880.
Common carriers must recognize transfers of bills of lading and con¬
signments of goods, and unless protected by proper vouchers cannot
always assume to deal with consignments as actually and beneficially
belonging to the consignee.—Walker v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. R. Co., 49 Mich. 446, 1882.
A consignor of goods, after they have passed from the hands of the
company with which the contract of affreightment was made, into the
hands of another company, has the same right to change their destination
while in transit by taking a new bill of lading as if the first company had a
continuous line to the place of destination.—Southerland v. First National
Bank of Peoria, 6 Amer. & Eng. R. R. Cases (Ky.), 368, 1881.
A stipulation in a bill of lading given by a common carrier that all
claims for damages shall be made by the consignee at the delivery station
before the article is taken away, is reasonable. Therefore in an action
against a railroad company for damages to certain cotton, when the
plaintiff had not complied with such stipulation contained in his bill of
lading, held that he was not entitled to recover.—Capehart v. Seaboard &
Roanoke R. R. Co., 77 N. C. 355, 1877.
The rules and regulations of a corporation made for the government of
the conduct of its officers do not become terms and conditions of the
bond of its officers unless such an intention is expressed on the face of the
bond.—Richmond & Petersburg R. R. Co. v. Casey, 30 Grattan Va., 218,
1878. Where the bond of an agent was couched in general terms it was held
that the promotion of the agent did not affect the liability upon the bond.—
Collier v. Southern Express Co., 32 Grattan, Va., 718, 1880. Where an agent was appointed to sell tickets at the office in M., and
afterwards the duties and responsibilities of another ticket office in the
same place were added to his charge, held that this was such a change in
his duties as would discharge the sureties upon his bond. Mumford v.
Memphis & Charlestown R. R. Co., 2 Lea., (Tenn.), 393, 1879.
34
In action upon agent’s bond for money due from sucli agents lie may
plead as a set-off the services rendered by him as agent.—Baltimore &
Ohio B. R. Co. v. Jameson, 13 W. Va., 833, 1878.
When it appears that plaintiff was authorized to receive freight for cer¬
tain parties and in pursuance thereof went to the depot of defendant and
there demanded the same of the agent who was in charge of the depot and
authorized to receive and deliver freight, and while so demanding it the
said agent made an assault upon him does not appear said assault was made
in ejection or attempting to eject lpaintiff from the depot or in preventing
or attempting to prevent him from committing any injury to the property
of the defendant, or from transgressing any rules for the regulation of its
depot and the transaction of its business held, that it did not appear that
the company was liable for the assault, and that only the agent who
actually made it was liable.—Hudson v. Missouri, Kansas & Tex R. R. Co.,
16 Kans., 470, 1876.
If a passenger on a railway brings a trunk to the depot, which in fact
contains costly jewelry of the value of $30,000, and gives no notice of its
contents, and has the same checked as ordinary baggage, and there is noth¬
ing about the trunk indicating its contents, and the same is consumed by
fire Avhile being carried, the company not being guilty of gross negligence
in respect to the origin of the fire or in attempting to extinguish the same
and save the baggage, it cannot be held liable for the contents of the
trunk.—Mich. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Carron, 73 Ill. 348, 1874.
It is the duty of a passenger having valuable merchandise in his trunk
or valise, and desiring its transportation, to disclose to the carrier the na¬
ture and value of the contents, and if the latter then chooses to treat it as
baggage, without extra compensation, the liability of the common carrier
will attach, but not otherwise.—Mich. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Carron, 73 Ill. 318,
1874.
If a passenger delivers to a railway company a trunk containing samples
of merchandise belonging to a third person whose agent he is, to be carried
to a place to which he has a ticket, the only contract entered into is for the
transportation of the personal baggage of the agent, and company is not
liable in contract to the owner of the trunk for its loss or'in tort, except for
its gross negligence ; and evidence that k large part of defendant’s business
consists in carrying passengers known as commercial travelers with trunks
like the one lost, containing merchandise, that such trunks, known as sam¬
ple trunks, are of special construction, and that such travelers purchase
tickets for the ordinary passenger trains and receive checks for their trunks,
and are transported for the price of the ticket, is immaterial.—Ailing
Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 126 Mass. 121, 1879.
When a through line for transportation of passengers and freight is es¬
tablished by the owners of different railroads, the first carrier who receives
the fare for the whole route and gives a through check for baggage, becomes
35
liable for any loss or injury, not only in its own line, but on any other road
in the connecting line throughout the entire distance.—Croft v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., I McArthur (Dist. Columbia) 492, 1874.
Station agents are to be presumed to have power to make contract for
their railroads for the transportation of freight. The limitations on their
powers the public cannot take notice of, unless they are conveyed to the
public in such a manner as to authorize the inference that shippers are
apprised of them.—Pratt v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 62 Mo. 527, 1876.
The question whether or not a railway station agent has as such agent
authority to bind the company by a contract to furnish cars to a shipper at
his station at a particular time is one of fact and not of law.—Wood v. Chi¬
cago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. R. Co., 59 la. 196, 1882.
A cashier or clerk of a railway company who has charge of its moneys,
is under a legal liability to the company to take charge of and preserve its
funds so intrusted to him; and if he loans the company’s money to a fellow
servant without the order or direction of any one having the right to give
such order, he will be liable personally to the company for the same, and
if he pays the same he cannot recover it back.—St. Louis, Alton & Terra
Haute R. R. Co. v. Thomas, 85 Ill. 467, 1877.
A railroad company engaged in the business of transporting cattle,
assumes all the responsibility of a common carrier; and it can limit such
responsibility only to the same extent and by the same means as in the
transportation of other property.—Kans. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 8 Kan.
23, 1871.
A common carrier may contract that the owner of live stock shall
assume all risk of damage from whatever cause in the course of transporta¬
tion.—Betts v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 21 Wis. 80, 1866.
When a lot of cattle is placed in the cars for transportation in time for
the next regular cattle train, the station agent of the company at the place
of shipment knowing the fact, it is the duty of the company to carry the
cattle by the next train, and by its neglect so to do, it will be liable for
whatever damage may resnlt to the cattle by reason of the delay.—Ill. Cent.
R. R. Co. v. Waters, 41 Ill. 73, 1866. Where two lots of live stock shipped by different owners, upon a rail¬
road to the same consignee, were by a mistake of the clerk in the office of
the station agent at the place of destination, all included in a single bill of
charges to one of the shippers, to whom both lots of stock were delivered,
it was held, that the owner who thereby lost his property, could recover
from the company its value.—Chicago & Northwestern R. R. Co. v. Ames,
40 Ill. 249, 1866. Watch and chain and diamond pin held to be wearing apparel. Clause
in contract limiting liability of carrier in event of loss of baggage to $100,
held not valid, but that passenger may recover $1,400 value of jewelry
lost.
36
In July, 1884, Samuel H. Coward bought a ticket in Memphis, Tenn., of
agent of "East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company for himself
and wife, to Waukesha, Wis., and return, for $27.95 for round trip, the reg¬
ular fare being $38.50, over Memphis & Charleston to Grand Junction, Illi¬
nois Central to Chicago, and Chicago & North-Western Railroad to Waukesha,
and signed a contract which it appears he perfectly understood, that in
the event of loss of baggage, none of the railroad companies on the line of
travel should be liable for more than $100. The passengers reached their
destination in due time, but the trunk of Mrs. Coward did not arrive on
same train, nor for several hours after the passengers. It was found that
the lock had been filed, the trunk opened and a watch and chain and dia¬
mond pin worth $1,400 had been abstracted. Held, that such jewelry
being usually worn by ladies in the circumstances of Mrs. Coward, at summer
resorts, was included in wearing apparel. Held, further, that carrier could
not limit his liability as against his negligence or bad faith or less than the real value of the apparel lost. Judgment for plaintiff for $1,400.—
Samuel H. Coward and wife v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. R. Co. Decided by
the Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Jackson, June 10, 1885.
Words on a ticket or baggage check limiting the liability of the carrier
to a specific amount for loss of baggage are not binding on a passenger, un¬
less, with knowledge of such limitation, he agrees to it.—B. & 0. R. R. Co.
v. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647, 1881.
Plaintiff left his baggage in defendant’s station, receiving a deposit
ticket thereof. On Sunday evening he came for his baggage, and the office
was shut, and he thereby delayed from taking another train out of the city.
The defendant was held liable for the damages.—Stallard v. Great Western
Railway Co., 2 Best & Smith 419; 110 E. C. L. 419, 1862.
With the assent of a common carrier, the baggage of travelers may be
left at a railway station without notice to it or its agent; and such assent
may be implied from its course of business or custom of the carrier.—
Green v. Milwaukee & St. Paul R’y Co., 41 Iowa 410, 1875.
The delivery by a carrier of personal baggage to the wrong person, al¬
though by mistake, through imposition or upon a forged order, will not
excuse it; the carrier will 'remain rresponsible for the goods lost.—Waldron
v. Chicago & North-Western R. R. Co., 1 Dakota 351, 1876.
Plaintiff was a passenger upon defendant’s line from R. to P., having
the usual check for her baggage. On arrival at P., she informed the station
baggage-master that she desired to leave The trunk for a few days. The
baggage-master ^replied that he was not allowed to keep baggage with the
checks on it; that if she gave up her check the baggage would be perfectly
safe. This she did, and the trunk was left. It was subsequently delivered to one falsely claiming it. In an action to recover its value, held, that the
declaration of the agent was, in substance, a notification to plaintiff that he
was without power to continue in force the obligation of the company in
respect to the baggage indicated by the check, and the surrender of the
37
check was, in effect, an admission of the performance of that obligation.
That in the absence of evidence tending to show that the agent had power
thereafter to bind it by a new agreement, or that the company had acqui¬
esced in the exercise by him of such power and it appearing that it was in
violation of the regulations of the company, defendant could not be held
liable.—Mattison v. N. Y. Cent. E. E., 76 N. Y. 381, 1874.
If the passenger does not call for his baggage on arrival, the carrier
cannot abandon it; but his responsibility as carrier ceases after a reasonable
time has elapsed to enable the owner to claim it and a modified liability
like that of warehousemen, supervenes.—Mattison v. N. Y. Cent., 76 N. Y. 381, 1879.
Where a common carrier receives goods for shipment, and gives the con¬
signor a bill of lading, in which the goods are described to be in apparent
good order, the bill of lading is prima facie evidence, in a suit against the
carrier, that the goods were in good conditon.—Ill. Cent. E. E. Co. v. Cobb,
72 Ill. 148, 1874.
Where a railway passenger on arriving at his place of destination takes
his baggage in his own exclusive control, but afterwards, for his own con¬
venience, hands it to the baggage master at the depot to be kept until sent
for, the company is not liable for the baggage as a common carrier, but it
is liable for gross negligence as a gratuitous bailee.—Minor v. Chicago &
Northwestern E. E. Co., 19 Wis. 40, 1865.
Blockade of freight.—A railway company may on account of unusual
press of business, or inadequacy of rolling stock, decline to receive freight
but if it receive the freight it must be forwarded without delay or the com¬
pany will be liable for the damages caused thereby.—Faulkner v. South
Pacific E. E. Co., 51 Mo., 3 Ill, 1873. An action to recover damages for injuries received by falling from a
higher to a lower station platform in which the plaintiff, who obtained a
verdict, alleged that the station platforms were insufficiently lighted. Held,
on the subject of the duty of appellant to the appellee in this case, the court
correctly gave the following charge : “ It was the duty of the defendant at
said station where it received passengers, to have and keep in reasonably
safe condition suitable approaches to and from its cars to its station house,
and at night-time, if needed, to have sufficient light to enable passengers
who might wish to take passage on night trains, to pass with safety from
the station house to the trains.”—I. & G. N. E. E. v. Stewart, 57-Texas, 166.
A High Platform amounts to Negligence.—It is negligence in a rail¬
road company to have a station platform higher than the steps of passen¬
ger coaches, and to require in consequence that passengers should enter
from the platform into a baggage car, and thence to proceed to the coach or
coaches assigned to passengers. The company is liable in damages for in¬
juries received by passengers while they are seeking to board a train in that
manner at the request of the conductor.—Supreme Court of Louisiana,
June, 1885, Sarah P. Turner v. The V. S. & P. E. E. Co.
33
Bill of Lading.—A bill of lading contained a stipulation tliat the
freight on the articles to be transported should be $120 per car, and the
farther statement that such articles were to be used for farm purposes. In
an action by the shipper to recover the difference between such stipulated
rate and full rate which he had been obliged to pay, the carrier answered in
substance that the stipulated rate was a reduced rate given only on articles
to be used “for farm purposes” and at the time the bill of lading was made
out, the shipper falsely represented that they were to be so used, and it
was with such understanding that both stipulations were inserted in the
bill of lading, while in fact the articles were not to be used for “farm pur¬
poses” Held that the stipulation that the articles were to be used for
“farm purposes” was as binding as the stipulation that they should be
carried at a reduced rate and that the shipper could not recover.—Fry and
others v. Louisville, 1ST. A., etc. By. Co., October 16, 1885. Northwestern
Reporter, vol. 2, No. 6. p 771.
Carrier of Good-Bills of Lading.—A. purchased lumber from B.
intending to ship it to Chicago, but B. attached it for non-payment of pur¬
chase money, whereupon it was agreed by A., B. and the station-agent, that
the bill of lading should be issued to B. as consignor, and that he should
hold it as security for his claim against A., and sufficient money to pay B.’s
'claim. The bill of lading was issued without filling in any consignee, and
was signed and delivered with a draft attached which the bank had dis¬
counted to the cashier of the bank. A. directed the station agent if he re¬
ceived no more instructions, to ship the lumber to Chicago to C., which
was done, and the lumber was delivered to C. before the bank knew of it.
Held in an action by the bank against the railroad for delivering the
lumber to C,, that parol evidence was not admissible to show that the name
of the consignee had been omitted by agreement of the parties; that the
bank had a right to rely on the bill of lading, and was titled to recover.—
Garden Grove Bank v. Humeston & S. B. Co., Sup. Ct. Iowa, 25, N. W. Bep.
761.
Carriers.—Carrier of Passengers.—Negligence.—Passenger Board¬
ing Train After Signal for Starting.—The purchase of a ticket at a rail¬
road ticket office gives no rights to the passenger, except upon the condition
of presenting himself for passage before the signal is given for a start; and
if he comes after that it is not negligence, as against him, that the train
starts in obedience to it. The sale of a railroad ticket at a ticket office, be¬
fore the arrival of the train, gives no specific right to the purchaser to take
that particular train which is then at the station, or is’ about to arrive, and
the train need not be held beyond the regular time of starting to allow him
to get upon it.—Ruger C. J. Andrews and Danfortli, J. J. dissent.—Paulitisch
v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., Court of Appeals of New York, 6 N. E. Rep. 577.
39
Rights of Consignor of Freight.—Insufficient Mode of Levying
Attachment.—A railroad receiving freight from a vendor consigned to the
vendee is the agent of the latter and liable to him only for its safe delivery.
The vendor having no further authority over it except the right of stoppage
in transitu, it cannot be attached for his debt. The levy of an attachment
on his goods in the hands of a railroad for transportation by tacking a copy
of the order of attachment upon the goods and notifying an agent of the
road thereof is insufficient.—L. & N. Ed. Co. v. Spaulding, Superior Court of Kentucky, September 30, 1885.
Action to Recover the Value of a Trunk and its Contents.—The
evidence for the plaintiff is, substantially, that she was going to Chicago at
4:25 o’clock on the morning of November 17, ’82, and asked one Quinby to
find her a man to take her trunk to the depot. At 9:30 of the evening be¬
fore, an expressman came, took the trunk to the depot and put it under the
eaves in the dry, near the baggage room door, as Quinby had told him.
Quinby saw the baggage man and said “Here’s a trunk for No. 5, put it in
the baggage room.” He replied: “No, leave it out there, it will be all
right.” The baggageman receives baggage for the company when a ticket
is presented, and then gives a check for it, but not without. The baggage¬
man denied his expression to Quinby that night. The trunk was lost from
the platform. * * *
A railroad company may receive a trunk as baggage, and become liable
for its loss as such before transit, upon the express or implied understand¬
ing that the owner is to become a passenger, although he has neither pur¬
chased a ticket nor paid fare. In such case the express or implied agree¬
ment to become a passenger makes the owner in such a sense a passenger
as to make the railway cfompany liable for the loss of his baggage up to the
time when the train leaves, and it is ascertained that the owner has not
kept his agreement by becoming a passenger. If a railway company is
willing to receive a trunk as baggage and assume the responsibility of hold¬
ing it as such upon the express or implied agreement of the owner to be¬
come a passenger, there is nothing to prevent it from so doing. The evi¬
dence shows that the trunk was so received and that appellee kept her
agreement by buying a ticket and becoming a passenger. Appellee was not
bound by any regulations limiting the authority of the baggageman as to
the time when he should receive baggage, unless he had notice or was put
up on inquiry. Persons have no right to send baggage to the depot to be
kept for an unreasonable time. If the time is unreasonable, that might be
noticed, but from 9:30 p. m. until 4:25 a. m., cannot be regarded as unrea¬
sonable, nor sufficient to put an appellee upon notice.—Lake Shore & Mich.
Cent. Ry. Co. v. Mary Foster, Ind. Sup. Ct., Dec. 29, 1885. Baggage.—Reasonable Time for Delivery.—A railroad company is an
insurer of the baggage of a passenger so long as the relation of a common
carrier exists, and that exists as to such baggage until its arrival and dis-
40
charge at the place of destination and until the owner has had reasonable
time and opportunity to claim and take it away. If it is not called for within
such reasonable time, the company may store it in a secure warehouse and
from thence its liability as carrier ceases and that of warehouseman is as¬
sumed.
The reasonable time in which the owner must apply for his baggage
when it is transported by the same train on which he himself travels is di¬
rectly after its arrival and transfer to the platform, making due allowance
for the confusion occasioned by the arrival and departure of the train and
for the delay necessarily caused by the crowd on the platform.
And if a party is informed that his baggage has not arrived on the train
he came on, and he gives no directions concerning it and no information to
identify himself so notice of its arrival can be given, it is his duty to make
inquiry for it the first convenient opportunity after the arrival of the next
train and within a reasonable time.—Chicago & Alton Ed. Co. v. Addizoat,
Appellate Court of Illinois, March 3, 1886.
Though a railway company may limit its liability by notice, yet the
terms of the notice must be clear and explicit, and the person Avith whom
the carrier deals must have knowledge of the terms of the notice; and where
the notice is in the English language and the passenger is a German, it is
incumbent upon the carrier to prove the knowledge by the passenger of the
limitation in the notice.--Camden & Amboy E. E. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Penn.,
Sta., 67, 1851.
Eeceipt.—If a shipper takes a receipt for his goods from the carrier,
containing conditions limiting the liability of the carrier with a full knowl¬
edge on the part of the shipper of such conditions and intending to assent
to the restrictions contained in them, it becomes his contract as fully as if
he had signed it.—Illinois Central E. E. Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 Ill., 88, 1870.
Contract.—A railway company is bound by its freight agent’s agree¬
ment to carry goods within a specified time, if it be a reasonable time.—
Strohn v. Detroit & Milwaukee E. E. Co., 23 Wis., 126, 1868.
A mere statement by the agent that the ordinary time for transportation
over a proposed route is a certain number of days, does not constitute an
agreement to carry in that time.—lb.
Where a bill of lading is made out by the carrier and accepted by the
shipper, all previous parol agreements are merged in it.—Bostwick v. Bal¬
timore and Ohio E. E Co., 55 Barbour (N. Y.), 137, 1869. Long v. New York
Central E. E. Co., 76, 1872.
A common carrier connot contract against liability for loss from his
own ordinary negligence. Such a condition is void as against public pol¬
icy.—Indianapolis, Pittsburg and Cleveland E. E. Co. v. Heaton, 37 Ind.,
448, 1871.
Notice to Limit Liability.—A notice limiting the liability of a car¬
rier, even though brought home to the knowledge of the shipper, will not
41
exempt the carrier from liability for negligence.—Blumenthall v. Brainerd,
38 Vt., 402, 1866. Mann v. Birchard, 40 lb. 326,1867.
Although a common carrier cannot, by a general notice to such effect,
free itself from all liability for property by it transported, yet by notice
brought to the knowledge of the owner, it may reasonably qualify its lia¬
bility.—Smith v. North Carolina B. R. Co. 64 N. C., 235, 1870.
Railroad Companies.—Obstructing Highway.—Negligence.—As a
railroad company has no right to obstruct a highway with its cars for a
longer period than five minutes at any one time, a violation of its duty in
this respect is negligence, and if a party is injured by reason thereof, being
free from fault on his own part, the company will be liable therefor.
Where a party, in attempting to cross the track at a highway, is thrown
out of his cutter and injured by reason of his horse becoming frightened
by the proximity and position of cars that the railroad company has al¬
lowed to obstruct the highway for more than five minutes, and such party
if free from negligence himself, the company will be held liable.—Gilbert
v. Flint & P. M. Ry. Co., 51 Mich. 488; S. C. 16 N. W. Rep. 868, distinguished.
—Young v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co. Supreme Court of Michigan, April, 1885.
Carrier of Goods.—Limitation of Liability.—Negligence.—Valua¬
tion.—Where a contract of carriage, signed by the shipper, is fairly made
with a railroad company, agreeing on a valuation of the property carried,
with the rate of freight based on the condition that the carrier assumes li¬
ability only to the extent of the agreed valuation even in case of loss or
damage by the negligence of the carrier, the contract will be upheld as a
proper and lawful mode of securing a due proportion between the amount
for which the carrier may be responsible and the freight he receives, and
of protecting himself against extravagant and fanciful valuation.—Hart v,
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. Law Record, vol. 12, p. 464.
Carrier of Goods.—Connecting Lines.—Liability Beyond Terminus.
—When a carrier received goods marked to a place beyond the terminus of
his own line, without more, or without any further or special contract,
he is only liable to carry safely to the end of his own route, and deliver to
the next carrier on the usual route. Bill of lading, with condition on the
back limiting liability to defendant’s own road, if goods are deliverable to
a point beyond, upon notice to next carrier of readiness to deliver to them,
is not evidence of a through contract. An offer by a common carrier to
take car load lots of peas from N. to P. at 25 cents per 100 pounds is not an
offer to carry N. to P., but only to take the goods for carriage to the end of
the defendant’s own route, and then deliver them to the next carrier to
forward.—Harris v. Grand Trunk Ry. Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 5
Atlantic Rep. 305. Acceptance of Baggage Checks Proof of Contract to Carry as
Baggage.—Liability as Warehouseman.—In this case D., a traveling sales¬
man, had three trunks with him containing samples of his goods, and he
42
had them checked as baggage to H. taking the ordinary baggage checks,
and agreeing to pay, as freight, for all weight in excess of 200 pounds. The
trunks were delivered at H. on, the arrival of the train, 9 p. m., but D. did
not take them, as he went on to M. He returned to H. the next morning,
Sunday, and still left the trunks at the station, not taking them to his
hotel, as usual, and leaving the freight unpaid. The trunks had been
placed in the baggage-room, and early on Monday morning they were
burned in a fire which consumed the depot, through no negligence of the
company. The employers of D. sued for the loss of the trunks and the goods
in them, claiming that they were carried as freight, and the company de¬
fended on the ground that they held them as a warehouseman and not as a
carrier. In the opinion affirming the judgment below in favor of the railway
company, the court says: “The company accepted these trunks as baggage
from D., and he accepted the baggage checks as for them. This settles the
question whether they were baggage or not. Under the contract to carry
the trunks as baggage the company were bound to deliver them at H. and
keep them on the platform, or like place, for the passenger to surrender
his check and take them. They were left with the company, however, and
they stored them in the baggage-room, where they were burned. The
company was liable as a warehouseman, and fire is not included in such a
risk.”—Holger v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul E. E. Co. Supreme Court
of Wisconsin. Opinion by Cassody, J.
Connecting Lines.—Through Freight Contract.—When a railroad
Company contracts for the shipment of goods over its own and several con¬
necting lines, it is a common carrier for the whole route, and liable as such
for loss anywhere along the line. A carrier cannot limit its legal liability
by publication or recitals in bills of lading not a part of the contract.—
Central Ed. etc. v. Dwight Manufacturing Co. Supreme Court of Georgia,
1886.
Biles of Lading.—Common Carrier.—When the shipping clerk of a
common carrier, with authority to issue bills of lading, by collusion with
the alleged consignor fraudulently issues a bill to said consignor for a car¬
load of barley which was not delivered to said carrier nor shipped to plain¬
tiff, upon the faith of which bill of lading the plaintiff makes advances to
the consignor as he had been accustomed to do upon prior bills, the com¬
mon carrier is estopped from denying the authority of the shipping clerk ;
and is liable to make good to the plaintiff his loss thereby. Where such
bill is issued in New York for goods delivered in Philadelphia, the law of
New York must control in determining the carrier’s liability, as that is the
lex loci contractus.—Brooks et al. v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Eailroad
Company. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, July, 1866. (Pittsburg Legal
Journal.
43
Family Tickets.—Expulsion Age.—Excessive Damages.—Tliis is an
action to recover damages for being unlawfully and harshly expelled from
defendant’s train. Trial was had and a verdict of judgment for $1,000
awarded. The defendant appealed. The evidence showed that the plaintiff,
over twenty-one years of age, took passage upon defendant’s train
to Elgin. He presented to the conductor a family ticket, which was re¬
fused, solely on the ground that appellee was not entitled to ride upon the
ticket as he was more than twenty-one years of age. Fare was refused and
the conductor forcibly expelled him from the train at a station on the road.
Plaintiff receivedno personal injury and no more force than necessary used
to expel him. He was and had always lived with his father. Held, that a
railroad ticket which on its face purports to be for the exclusive use of a
man and his family authorizes a son who is residing with his father as a
member of his family to ride upon the road, notwithstanding he may be
over twenty-one years of age, unless informed by the giver when obtained
that sons or daughters of age would not be included. Held, that where a
party is forcibly and unlawfully ejected from a car,in the presence of other
passengers, and the conductor publicly announces that he has refused to
pay his fare, a jury may properly find from such facts that the party thus
ejected suffered feelings of shame and humiliation, without any other proof
on that subject. Held, that where a party was ejected from a railroad car
unlawfully, and suffered no personal injury, and delayed only one day in
reaching his home, pecuniary loss not more than $10, verdict for $1,000 was
excessive and for this reason the judgment is reversed, and a new trial or¬
dered.—C. & N.-W. Ry. Co. v. Chisholm. Sup. Ct. of Ill.
Liability of Connecting Bailboad Line.—A passenger bought of the
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company, at Omaha, a coupon ticket
from that place to the city of New York, calling for passage over the road
of thatcompany to St. Louis, and from thence to New York over the Ohio &
Mississippi, the Marietta & Cincinnati, the Baltimore & Ohio, the Philadel¬
phia, Wilmington & Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania railroad lines. The
ticket had printed on its face : “In selling this ticket for passage over the
other roads this company acts only as agent for them and assumes no res¬
ponsibility beyond its own line,” and the coupon over the Pennsylvania
declared, “Issued by the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway on account of
Pennsylvania Railroad,” which the company owning the latter road refused
to accept, and on refusal to pay the regular fare demanded, ejected the
passenger. The court held in this suit, which was brought by the passenger
against the latter company, that the first-named company contracted with
the passenger only as an agent of the defendant company.—Pennsylvania
Railroad Company v. Connell. Supreme Court of Illinois.
Cakkieb of Goods.—When not Liable fob Delay occasioned by Steik-
ebs.—Liability fob Acts of Stbikebs.—A railroad may excuse delivery in
the delay of goods caused by accident or misfortune, not inevitable or pro-
44
duced by the act of God. All that can be required of it in any emergency is
that it shall exercise due care and diligence to guard against delay; and the
facts that the originators of a strike by which plaintiff’s freight was delayed,
had been employes of defendant, does not make it liable for failure to for¬
ward such freight, where it had other employes who were ready and willing
to manage its trains and carry the stock, but who were prevented from do¬
ing so by mob violence, which defendant could not by reasonable efforts
overcome. Such strikers cease to be in the service of the railroad, or in any
sense its agents, for whose conduct it was responsible, when they struck.
—Greismer v. Lake Shore & M. S. E. E. Co. Court of Appeals of New York,
7 N. E. Rep. 828.
Stoppage in Transit.—Delivery.—Where goods are removed by a rail¬
road company and 'placed in its warehouses to await payment of freight
charges and a delivery to the vendor, the implication of the law is that the
goods are still in transit and subject to the vendor’s right of stoppage.—
Symus et al. v. Schotten et al. Supreme Court of Kansas, 1886.
Carrier of Goods.—Change of Destination by Consignee.—Car¬
riage to Destination beyond Carrier’s Line.—Where a consignee, having
his place of business at East St. Louis, was in the habit of receiving goods
in car load lots billed at St. Louis, and had directed a carrier, whose line
terminated at East St. Louis, to hold at East St. Louis all such goods car¬
ried by it, and consigned to him at St. Louis; held, that the carrier was
justified in still delivering such goods to a connecting carrier, and forward¬
ing them to St. Louis in spite of such notification; that the carrier was
entitled to have the jury so instructed; and that an instruction that such
notice bound the carrier to deliver the goods at East St. Louis was erron¬
eous. Evidence that a consignee has on former occasions used similar bills
of lading to the one involved in the case, and containing the same pro¬
vision limiting the carrier’s liability, is admissible as tending to show that
he had knowledge of the limitation clause, and had assented to it. Where
a consignee has accepted a bill of lading from a carrier, and afterwards
brings suit against the carrier for breach of contract, it is for the court to
tell the jury what, by the bill of lading, the contract is, and a reference of
the question to the jury is erroneous. Where a carrier receives goods to carry,
marked to a particular place beyond his line, he is bound, under an implied
agreement from the marks and directions, to carry to and deliver at that place,
although it be a place beyond his own line of carriage. While the carrier
may, by contract with the shipper, limit his contract to one of carriage
on his own line, the facts in the present case are held not to show such a
contract.—Wabash, St. L. & P. Ey Co. v. Jaggerman and others. Supreme
Court of Illinois, 4 N. E. Eep. 641.
Penalty for Extortion and Unjust Discrimination.—Objections.—
Eeasons for, etc.—A penalty against a railroad, or other common carrier,
for extortion or unjust discrimination in carrying persons or property, is
in the nature of a criminal statute, and must be strictly construed. A fail-
45
ure to furnish cars for the transportation of property is not such unjust
discrimination as is contemplated in section 13 of the code, and treble
damages cannot be recovered therefore. Where objections are properly
taken, and the attorney fails to present the proper reasons therefor, the
court may place them on the true ground, although not insisted on by
counsel.—Bond v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. Supreme Court of Iowa, 10 X. W. Rep. 892.
Principal and Agent.—Negligence.—Declarations of Engineer as
to Cause of Injury.—Declarations by an agent or servant employed to
perform a certain duty are not admissible against the principal, unless
they are part of the facts and circumstance of some act happening within
the scope of the servant’s or agent’s employment. In an action of damages
for injury to a child by a railroad train, the declarations of the engineer
concerning the accident, made from three to five minutes after the. cas¬
ualty happened, are admissible against the principal as part of the res
gestoe.—Durkee v. Cent. Pac. Rd. Co. Sup. Ct. Cal., 9 Pac. Rep., 99.
Carrier.—Unendorsed Bill of Lading.—The delivery to the acceptor
of a draft of an unendorsed bill of lading is sufficient to transfer the title
to the property covered thereby. In such case the carrier is not liable to
the shipper for the value of the goods, should the acceptor fail to pay the
draft.—Jordan v. Railroad Company. Superior Court, Indiana.
Liability of Carrier Under Fictitious Bill of Lading.—In Brooks
v. Railroad, the supreme court of Pennsylvania, October, 1885, decides that
a railroad company is liable to innocent third parties upon a fictitious bill
of lading issued by the shipping clerk of the railroad, in collusion with a
consignor, the ’goods not1 being received. This decision is directly con¬
trary to the case of Pollard v. Vinton decided by the supreme court oTthe
United States, March, 1882, (see 15th Otto. 7), and is against the weight of
authority elsewhere. It is to be regretted that this divergence should con¬
tinue, especially with regard to cases of a commercial character. In such
cases it would be far better if the State courts would follow the decisions of
the United States supreme court, where the questions have been directly
decided. Whatever may be the true principle, it is more satisfactory to the
commercial community to have uniformity rather than have the question
of liability fluctuate and depend upon the court in which the case should
be heard.—The American Law Record, Febuary, 1886, p. 504.
Common Carrier.—Failure to Carry Freight as Agreed.—Complaint.
—-In an action against a railroad company for failure to carry certain cattle as
agreed, a complaint averring, among other things, that the company agreed
to receive and ship said cattle; th^t the plaintiff “delivered said cattle, * * *
according to the terms of said understanding, at the stock-yards of the de¬
fendant; * * * and that the defendant, after the cattle had been placed
in said yards, refused |to ship said cattle,” is good on demurrer. Where,
irTsuch case, the evidence shows that the cattle were not shipped, because
46
in loading them several escaped through a defective fence around the cattle
pen, and could not be caught in time, although the train was held about 30
minutes over time at the request of the plaintiffs, and that the car was left
at the place partially loaded, there can be no recovery, under such com¬
plaint, because no refusal to accept or carry the cattle is shown.—Louisville,
N. A. & C. Ey. Co. v. Godman and others. Supreme Court of Ind., 4 N. E.
Eep. 163.
Carrier of Goods.—Damage to Eace Horses.—Evidence.—H. shipped
five horses, and other property, by a railroad, in one car, under a bill of
lading, signed by him, which stated that the horses were to be transported
“ upon the following terms and conditions, wThich are admitted and accept¬
ed by me as just and reasonable: First, to pay freight thereon” at a rate
specified, “on the condition that the carrier assumes a liability on the stock
to the extent of the following agreed valuation: If horses or mules, not ex¬
ceeding two hundred dollars each. * * * If a chartered car, on the stock
and contents in same, twelve hundred dollars for the car load. But no car¬
rier shall be liable for the acts of the animals themselves, * * * nor for
loss or damage arising from condition of the animals themselves, which
risks, being beyond the control of the company, are hereby assumed by the
owner, and the carrier released therefrom.” By the negligence of the rail¬
road company or its servants, one of the horses was killed, and the others
were injured, and the other property was lost. In a suit to recover the dam¬
ages, it appeared that the horses were race horses, and the plaintiff offered
to show damages based on their value, amounting to over $25,000. The tes¬
timony was excluded, and he had a verdict for $1,200. On a writ of error
brought by him: Held, (1) the evidence was not admissible, and the valua¬
tion and limitation of liability in the bill of lading was just and reasonable,
and binding on the plaintiff ; (2) the terms of the limitation covered a loss
through negligence.—Hart v. Penn. E. E. Co., Law Eecord, vol. 12, p. 464.
Carrier.—Limiting Liability by Contract.—Live Stock.—Notice of
Claim.—While a common carrier cannot exonerate himself from liability for
his negligence or misfeasance, yet he may, by special agreement, fairly
made, limit his common-law liability, provided such limitation is reasonable
and just, and does not contravene any law or a sound public policy. In an
agreement between a railway company and a shipper, for the transportation
of horses over the railway, there was a stipulation which provided that as a
condition precedent to his right to recover damages for any loss or injury
to the horses while in transit, the shipper would give notice in writing of
his claim therefor to some officer of the said railway company, or its nearest
station agent, before the horses were rentoved from the place of destina¬
tion, or from the place of delivery to the shipper, and before such horses
were mingled with other stock. Held, that the agreement is reasonable,
and, when fairly made, is binding upon the parties thereto.—Goggin v.
Kansas Pac. Ey. Co., 12 Kan. 412.— Sprague v. Missouri Pac. Ey. Co., Sup.
Ct. of Kan., 8 Pac. Eep. 465 and note.
47
Caebieb of Passengebs.—Stations and Platfobms.—Condition.—
Rights of Passengebs.—A railroad company is bound to keep in safe con¬
dition for its passengers all that part of its stations and platforms where
passengers are expressly or impliedly invited to go, and is bound, by its
servants and agents, to exercise due care towards passengers using its sta¬
tions and platforms by its invitation. Where a passenger upon a railroad-
train, upon leaving the train, was walking upon the platform of the station
to a point where there was no crossing, for the purpose of crossing the
tracks where she had no right to go, and either backed against or was struck
by a truck standing on the platform, held, that as the intention in her mind
to cross had not become an act, and as she might never have acted in ac¬
cordance with that intention, that she was still a passenger leaving the sta¬
tion of the railroad, and entitled to protection as much. Also, held, that the
question of due care on the part of the passenger or the agents of the rail¬
road was a question for the jury. It cannot be held, as a matter of law, that
it is the duty of a passenger, on leaving a railroad train, to take the shortest
practicable course to the nearest highway, and that if he does not he be¬
comes a trespasser or licensee only.—Keefe v. Boston & A. R. Co., Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 7 N. E. Rep. 874.
Common Cabeieb.—Insteuctions.—Deliveey.—Tendee.—Measuee of
Damages.—The inhibition contained in article 1608, revised statutes, ap¬
plies only to cases on trial in justice’s court and not to cases on appeal in
county court; but when the county court declines to deliver a charge to the
jury, to be reversible error the refusal to charge must be shown to have
prejudiced the rights of appellant. It is not sufficient that charges be asked
when such charges did not enunciate correct principles of law applicable to
the case. A consignee is not bound to receive his freight at any other than
the point of destination. He may do so, however, and relieve the carrier
from liability. An action will lie against a carrier for non-delivery of prop¬
erty at its destination, though partially injured, and that by the act of
God. Where there is evidence adduced showing a tender of freight at a
place other than the proper destination, the question of tender is one of
law, and the court is not required to submit that issue to the jury. Where
there is no evidence adduced as to the value of the use of goods lost by a
carrier, and the requested charge also embodies a rule restricting and lim¬
ing the right of the plaintiff to recover the value of the goods without ex¬
plaining how such value is to be ascertained, the charge was correctly re¬
fused. The measure of damages for the loss of goods is their fair market
value at the point of destination, with legal interest thereon from the date
when they should have been delivered. The rule does not apply where
the goods are second-hand. The mere failure of a consignor to inform the
carrier of the value of the goods if not per se such fraud as will discharge
the carrier. The consignor is not bound to disclose the value of goods un¬
less asked. Affirmed.—Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway v. Clark et ah
Texas Court of Appeals. Opinion by White, P. J.
48
Suretyship .—Increase of Duties of Principal.—The condition of a
bond given was to secure a railroad company for a faithful discharge of all
duties of “said office or place (ticket seller in Boston) which are or may be
imposed upon him under this or any future appointment.” L., the clerk,
was paid, at first, $1,000 salary, and the capital of the company was $2,853,400,
and he sold tickets over 1,040 miles of railroad, and three steamboat lines.
A few years later the salary was increased to $1,800, the capital stock had
grown to $4,997,600, and the tickets were sold over 2,250 miles of road and
five steamboat lines,> The sureties refused to pay when it was discovered
that the agent was in arrears, on the ground that they became surety for
the existing risks and responsibilities of the place, and that the increase of
business caused an increase of risk. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant
appealed the case (Eastern Bailroad Company v. Loring) to the supreme
judicial court of Massachusetts, where the judgment was affirmed. Judge
Charles Allen, in the opinion, said: “We agree that any substantial change
in his office, without his sureties’ consent, would discharge them from lia¬
bility. But in this case there was no such change. The name of his office
or position and the nature of his duties remained the same; the only change
was that his duties and compensation were increased in extent. Such in¬
crease was fairly within what the bond allowed.” Common Carriers.—Extortion.—Excessive Bates for Freight.—
Where a common carrier fixes an excessive rate for freight, whicn a shipper
pays for many years without objection, he must be deemed to have assented
to the charge as reasonable, and to have voluntarily waived any objection
thereto, and cannot recover back the excess in an action for extortion.—
Killmer v. New York Cent. & H. B. [Bd Co. Supreme Court of New York,
November 24, 1885. Northwestern Bep., vol. 3, No. 3, p. 293.
Common Carrier.—Failure to Deliver within Beasonable Time not
Conversion.—When a carrier fails to deliver goods,within a reasonable time,
such failure per se will Jnot amount to a conversion, but is only a breach of
contract.—Texas & Pacific By, Co. v. Martin, Texas Court of Appeals, Octo¬
ber, 1884.
Notice.—General Bule Limiting Life of Ticket must be Made Known
to Purchaser to Bind the Latter.—Plaintiff purchased an excursion ticket
from Williamsport to Philadelphia and return, in August, 1879, and used the
part for passage to Philadelphia at the time it was bought. In November,
1881, he attempted to use the return part, and when he was on the Northern
Central Bailroad, between Harrisburg and Dauphin, the conductor stopped
the train and ejected him. The ticket had nothing printed on it showing
that it must be used within a limited time. Held, that the Pennsylvania
Bailroad was liable for the act of the conductor, as the jury found that he
was one of their employes, and that a general notice, not shown to have
been actually brought to plaintiff’s attention, that such tickets were only
49
good during the year they were sold, would not defeat plaintiff’s right of
action.—Pennsylvania E. E. Co. v. Spiecker, Supreme Court of Pennsyl¬ vania.
Ticket Obtained fbom E. E. Co. by Fraud, but Used by Innocent
Purchaser, Invalid.—1. When the possession of a railroad passenger ticket,
which entitles the holder to one first-class passage between points named
therein, has been fraudulently obtained from the company, a person pur¬
chasing such ticket from the holder thereof, although for value and with¬
out notice of equities, acquires no title thereto.
2. An agent, authorized to sell such tickets, and stamp and deliver the
the same upon receiving pay therefor, cannot bind his company by stamp¬
ing and delivering such tickets without the knowledge and consent of its
proper officers, to a third person, to be sold by him, and to be paid for
when sold.—Frank v. Ingall, Eeceiver, etc. Supreme Court of Ohio. Sep¬
tember 30, 1884.
Common Carrier.—Special Contract to Transport Circus Cars.—
Liability.—A railroad company that contracts with a circus proprietor as a
hirer, and not as a common carrier, to furnish men and motive power to
transport his circus in special cars owned by him, said cars to be operated
under the management, direction, order and control of the said proprietor,
or his agent, and by means of his said employes as his agents, but to run
according to the rules, regulations and time tables of the company, from a
point designated to certain other points, at greatly reduced rates, with the
privilege of stopping at places and times stated to give exhibitions, is not
liable as a common carrier, and may stipulate for exemption from respon¬
sibility for damages caused by the negligence of its servants while in this
special employment.—Coup v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Eailway Com¬
pany. Michigan Supreme Court, Jan., 1885.
Strikers Interfering with Property.—As to the power of the court
to punish strikers and others interfering with property in the custody of a
receiver, where the court held that receivers are sworn officers of the court,
and their agents and employes in operating the railway are, pro hac vice, the
officers of the court. As such officers they are responsible to the court for
their conduct; and if they willfully injure the property or endanger it, or
seek to cripple its operation in the hands of the receivers, they can and
will be made to answer therefor. At the same time these officers, and the
property of the company in the custody of the court, are entitled to and
must have the full protection that the court can give, under the laws of the
land; and this, whether the grievance comes from within or without.
' Who unlawfully interferes with property in the possession of a court
is guilty of contempt of that court, and whoever unlawfully interferes with
officers and agents of the court in the full and complete possession and
management of property in the custody of the court is guilty of a con¬
tempt of court, and it is immaterial whether this unlawful interference
50
comes in the way of actual violence, or by intimidation and threats.—In re
Higgins and others—Circuit Ct. N. D. Texas, April, 1886; 27 Federal Eep.
443. Unloading.—Eailway companies are liable for want of ordinary care in
their servants in unloading freight from their cars though the consignee
has neglected to unload it, knowing it to be the rule of the carriers that
he must unload freight and that if he did not unload it within a certain
time the carriers would. Kimball v. Western E. E. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 542,
1856. Carriers of Goods.—Eailway Company’s Contract Limiting Liabil¬
ity for Loss.—As a general rule common carriers cannot by contract limit
limit their liability for loss occasioned by their negligence. Where, however,
a shipper misrepresents the value of his articles for the purpose of getting
reduced rates, it seems that he will be bound by a contract made by a rail¬
way company in good faith, fixing the amount of recovery for loss at the
sum stated by the shipper as the value of his goods.—Eosenfieldr. Peoria D.
& E. Ey. Co. Ind. Supreme Court, September 24,1885. Northeastern Eep.,
October 3, 1885. Common Carrier.—Authority to Eeship.—Where a common carrier
delivers grain to a consignee it may not reship such grain at the instance
of a third party unless it has been expressly authorized to do so by the
consignee.—Peoria and Pekin Union Ey. Co. 2. Buckley et al. Illinois Su¬
preme Court, July 13, 1885.
Eegulations for Handling Freight.—Liability for Unnecessary
Belay and Expense.—Eight of Action.—Plaintiff’s employer discharged
him because the appellee, company’s agents, would not permit him to enter
its warehouse to check off freight, or to enter behind its counters to tran¬
sact business. Held, 1. Under some circumstances appellant might have
an action against his employer. 2. The regulation of the company that
persons engaged in handling freight from its depot should receive the
same on the platform from its servants, and not enter the warehouse there
to check off the freight; and that persons doing business with the company
should transact the same over the counter instead of entering behind the
same, were reasonable and valid. 3. The employer might have his action
against the company for any unnecessary delay or expense occasioned by
such regulations, but appellant can have no action against the company
either for the consequences of the regulations or language used by the
company’s agents when informing appellant of the regulations. Affirmed.
—Donovan v. Texas & Pacific Eailroad Company. Supreme Court Texas,
Texas, November, 1885.
Corporation.—Eight to Make and Enforce Eeasonable Eules.—A
corporation has a right to make reasonable bylaws for the regulation of its
business. A rule by a telegraph company that “transient persons sending
messages which require answer must deposit an amount sufficient to pay
51
for ten words. In such case tlie signal ‘thirty-three’ will be sent with the
message, signifying that the answer is prepaid,” is a reasonable regulation,
and a plaintiff in an action to recover the statutory penalty for failure to
deliver a message, who refused to comply therewith by depositing twenty-
five cents, cannot recover for the company’s omission to deliver.—Western
Union Telegraph Co. v. John McGuire. Supreme Court of Indiana, Sept. 16, 1885.
Common Carrier.—Liability of.—Attachment of Goods En Route.—
Plaintiff Notified of Attachment.—Notice Released Defendant.—The
action was brought to recover a balance of $445.37 claimed to be due on ad¬
vances made to C. R. Kear, on a consignment of hay and oats shipped over
the road. It had been urged that in May of last year a party giving the
name of C. R. Kear and stating his firm to be C. B. Kear & Co., obtained
from the plaintiffs $860, as an advance on five car-loads of hay and one car¬
load of oats, which he forwarded over the defendant’s road. He bad bought
the merchandise without paying for it and a portion of it was attached on
the way to satisfy the seller’s claim, only about half of the shipment reach¬
ing Lemont & Son. They endeavored to hold the railroad company respon¬
sible for the difference between the amount advanced to Kear and the sum
realized from the hay and oats delivered.
The court in deciding the case in favor of the railroad company, says:
It is quite plain, on the facts stated, that the defendant is not responsible
for the plaintiff’s loss. The Pennsylvania statute of June 13, 1874 (Purdon’s
Digest, p. 441), governs the case. The object of this legislation was to re¬
lieve railroad companies and other carriers and bailees from the duty, sup¬
posed or actual, of defending suits against the property entrusted to their
care. The plaintiff received notice of the attachments and it was his duty to
appear and defend if he supposed any good could he accomplished by doing so.
—Lemont & Co. v. New York, L. E. & W. Rd. Co. U. S. Circuit Court S. D.
Penn., Oct. 1886. (See chapter with regard to protecting company’s interest: page 17;
notice appended.) Carriers.—Delivery of Goods to Owner.—Where a railway company
delivered to the owner goods which were in its warehouse, taking his re¬
ceipt therefor, and by an arrangement between the owner and the ware¬
house man and the baggage man a part of the goods were left in the ware¬
house, and subsequently lost, held, that the company was not liable for the
goods lost, the baggage man having no authority to make any contract for
the company, and that his permitting part of the goods to remain in the
warehouse was his private arrangement, to which the company was not a
party.—Mulligan v. Northern Pac. Ry Co. Supreme Ct. of Dakota, 29 N.W.
Rep. 659.
52
Detention of Passenger.—Liability for Acts of Agents.—Action to
recover damages for detention npon a train. Tlie plaintiff and wife in this
case contracted with defendant company for a safe and speedy carriage
from A. to B. The train upon which they took passage was willfully and
unnecessarily stopped and side tracked en route by the conductor during a
stormy night, and they were obliged to remain upon it all night and far in¬
to the next day, from inability to procure other accommodations. The wife
became ill from the affects of the exposure, and experienced great suffering,
from which her health was permanently injured. The company defended
on the ground that the delay en route was the willful act of the conductor
unauthorized or approved by the company, and claimed that the defendant
was not liable for such unauthorized misconduct of a servant. Held, that it
is no defense to an action against a railroad corporation for its failure to
transport a passenger with proper dispatch, that the detention was a willful
of act of the conductor in charge of the train. Held, that it is immaterial
whether a breach of contract result from the negligence or the willfulness
the company’s agents; if his act is within the scope of his employment and
authority, the company is liable.—Weed v. Panama R. R. Co., New York
Supreme Court.
Master and Servant.—Dangerous Work Outside of Regular Em¬
ployment.—Liability of Master for Injury to Servant.—Where a mas¬
ter commands a servant to go outside of his regular employment to do a
work which is attended with special danger, and the servant, in response
to the specific commands of his master, goes and does the work in the way
and at the time directed, the fact that the servant knew it was dangerous
does not exonerate the master from responsibility, or make the servant
guilty of contributory negligence, unless the character of the danger be so
patent and so extreme that no one but a foolhardy, reckless man would
attempt it. But where the servant has equal means of knowing the danger,
so that the master and the servant stand equal in that respect, and the
servant is not specifically commanded as to the time and manner in which
the work may be done, but is told to do a particular thing, and has such
discretion that he can have some control over the means, time and manner
of doing the work, then, unless he does it in a way and with the means
which will be safest, he is guilty of contributory negligence.—English v.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rd. Co. United States Circuit Court, Dis¬
trict Minnesota, September 11, 1885.
Principal and Agent.—Carrier of Goods.—Liabilities.—Fictitious
Bill of Lading.—In the case stated, submitted for the opinion of the court
below, the following facts appear : The plaintiffs, Brooks & Harper, were
commission merchants in the city of Philadelphia, having business rela¬
tions with F. C. Williams, a dealer in produce at Batavia, in the State of
New York. On February 15,1881, P. J. Weiss, the shipping clerk of the de¬
fendant corporation at that place, gave to Williams a bill of lading in the name
53
of the company, purporting to be for a car-load of barley consigned to the
plaintiffs. After passing through various hands the bill of lading, with an
accompanying draft for $750, were received by the plaintiffs, and the draft
accepted and paid. The barley never arrived, and the bill of lading proved
to be fraudulent, Weiss never having received the barley for shipment.
Subsequently another car-load of barley was received by the plaintiffs, and
although they refused to accept the bill of lading and draft, the railroad
company through mistake allowed the car to remain on the premises of the
plaintiffs, who sold the barley and credited the proceeds to the account of
Williams. The plaintiffs then demanded of the corporation defendant
compensation for the fictitious bill of lading, which was refused on the
ground that Weiss had exceeded his powers in contracting to transport
goods which had not been received. The case stated asked that if the
court was of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the loss
sustained by non-delivery of the barley as specified in their bill of
lading, judgment be entered for plaintiffs for $300.39, being the balance due
upon the whole account; or if, in the opinion of the court, the defendant
has a right to require an appropriation of the proceeds of the barley sold,
judgment be entered for plaintiffs for $105.61, being the difference between
the deficiency on the shipment covering the missing car; but if the court
be of opinion that defendant is not liable at all, then judgment for defend¬
ant. The case was twice argued before the court below, who entered judg¬
ment in favor of the defendant, his honor, Judge Hare, delivering the
opinion. On appeal, judgment reversed, and judgment in the case stated in
favor of plaintiffs for $300.39, with interest from May 31, 1881, and costs.—
Brooke and another v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Ed. Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania, October 5, 1885. Atlantic Eep., November 4, 1885..
Bill of Lading.—Limiting Liability.—Where a shipper stipulates
with a common carrier as to the value of property to be transported, his
recovery, in case of loss, must be limited to the amount fixed in the con¬
tract. Plaintiff shipped at Jersey City five valuable race horses, with saddles
and equipments, on a car of defendant company, to be delivered at St. Louis.
The bill of lading, which was signed by both plaintiff and defendant, set
forth that the horses were to be transported “ upon the following terms and
conditions, which are admitted and accepted by me as just and reasonable:
First, to pay freight thereon (at a rate specified) on condition that the car¬
rier assumes liability on the stock to the extent of the following agreed
valuations: If horses or mules, not exceeding $200 each; if a chartered
car, on stock and contents in the same $1,200 for the car load. But no car¬
rier shall be liable for the acts of the animals themselves, nor for loss or
damage arising from the condition of the animals themselves, which risks,
being beyond the control of the company, are hereby assumed by the
owner, and the carrier released therefrom.” By the negligence of defend-
54
ant company, one horse was killed and others were injured and other prop-
erty was lost. In the original action to recover damages it appeared that
the horses were race horses, and plaintiff offered to show damages based on
their value amounting to over $25,000. The trial court held that the re¬
covery must be limited to the amount fixed in the contract. On appeal,
held, that evidence to show a greater value than that named in the bill of
lading wTas not admissible, and that the valuation and limitation of liability
in the bill of lading were just and reasonable and binding on plaintiff.
Where a contract of the kind signed by the shipper in this case is fairly
made, agreeing on a valuation of property carried, with a rate of freight
based on the condition that the carrier assumes liability only to the extent
agreed in the valuation, even in case of loss or damage by negligence of the
carrier, the contract will be upheld as a proper and lawful mode of secur¬
ing a due proportion between the amount for which the carrier may be
responsible and the freight he receives, so as to protect himself against
extravagant and fanciful valuations. Judgment of circuit court affirmed.—
Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. U. S. Supreme Court, November
24, 1884.
Stop-Over Ticket.—A passenger who, through the negligence of a
conductor, is not furnished with a stop-over check to which he is entitled,
and who, on attempting to resume his journey after a stop, is required by
a second conductor to pay additional fare or leave the train, may elect to
leave the train, and in that case he can recover from the company not
merely the additional fare which he is subsequently obliged to pay in order
to reach his destination, but all damages sustained by him as the direct
and natural consequence of the fault of the first conductor.—Yorton v.
Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Company. Supreme Court
Wisconsin, November 25, 1884.
Common Caeeiee.—Advancing Back Chaeges on Feeight.—It is not
the duty of common carriers to pay antecedent charges on freight tendered
to them by connecting carriers, even where it is customary so to do.—Balti¬
more & Ohio Railroad Company v. Adams Express Company. U. S. Circuit
Court E. D. Missouri, October 21, 1884.
Caeeiee.—Agent.—Limiting Liability.—1. The owner of property v
shipped by an agent in his own name may sue the carrier for an injury
thereto, being the real party in interest. 2. A common carrier may limit
his liability as an insurer by express contract, but he cannot escape liability
for negligence by the words “value not to exceed $100,” inserted in the
bill of lading; such a stipulation is contrary to public policy and void.—
Kansas City, St. Joseph and Council Bluffs Railroad Co. v. Simpson. Su¬
preme Court of Kansas, Nov. 9, 1883. .
Peesonal Peopeety.—Baggage.—Where the duly authorized agent of
a railway company receives personal property to be transported as baggage.
55
the company must account therefor as baggage, although in strict language
it may not be baggage—Chicago, Bock Island & Pacific railway Co. v.
Conklin. Supreme Court of Kansas, May, 1884.
Purchase of Ticket.—Failure of Train to Stop at Station.—Plaint¬
iff purchased from the station agent of the defendant company, at A., a
ticket for passage to B., at which point the agent assured her the train
would stop; but the conductor of the train, which was a through express to
C., refused to stop at B. and carried plaintiff through to C., where she was
obliged to procure a carriage for B., and upon her arrival found her
daughter, whom she came te see, dead. Held: that the company is respon¬
sible for the mistake or misdirection of the station agent and not for the
refusal of the conductor. The measure of damages is the sum paid to re¬
turn to B., the value of her time and the inconvenience she suffered.—Mar¬
shal v. Bailroad Company. Supreme Court Missouri, December, 1883.
Bill of Lading.—Special Valuation Clause.—Where a person volun¬
tarily represents and agrees that goods delivered to a carrier are of a cer¬
tain value, and the charge for transportation is based upon such valuation,
such representation will be binding upon the party making it.
The defendant company received from the Chicago, Bock Island & Pa¬
cific Bailway Companvat Chicago, Ill., 75 barrels of highwines, the property
of the plaintiffs, which had been shipped from Peoria, Ill., for Boston,
Mass., under a through bill of lading, in which, by agreement of the ship¬
pers and the initial carrier, the said merchandise was said to be of the
value of twenty dollars per barrel. The defendant had no other knowledge
or information of its value, and the charge for transportation was based
upon such valuation. While on the defendant company’s line at South
Bend, Ind., the car containing the shipment was, with its contents,
completely destroyed by fire resulting from a collision caused by the
negligence of the defendant company’s servants. Plaintiffs brought suit to
recover $6,332.31, the actual value of the goods, whereas the shipping valu¬
ation was but $1,500. The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts
in the Superior Court of Boston, and a decision rendered in favor of the
defendant company upon the questions of law touching the validity of the
special valuation clause in the bills of lading. Plaintiffs appealed.
The court in delivering its opinion said: The bill of lading contained the
stipulation that the goods were “shipped at an agreed valuation of twenty
dollars per barrel, owners’ risk of leakage.” It also contained the agreement
that “ in the event of the loss of any property for which responsibility at¬
taches under this bill of lading to the carriers, the value or cost of the same
at the time and point of shipmeht is to govern the settlement, except the
value of the articles has been agreed upon with the shipper, or is deter¬ mined by the classification upon which the rates are based.” The defend¬
ants had no knowledge of the value of the goods except that furnished by
the statement of the shippers, and the charge for transportation was based
upon this statement and valuation.
56
The only question presented is whether the plaintiffs can recover any
more than the agreed valuation of the goods. The question whether a
carrier can, by a special contract, exempt himself from liability for a loss
arising from the negligence of himself or servants, is one which has been
much discussed and upon which the adjudications are conflicting. If we
adopt the general rule that a carrier cannot thus exempt himself from re¬
sponsibility, we are of opinion that it does not cover the case before us,
which must be governed by other considerations. The defendants have not
attempted to exempt themselves for liability for the negligence of their
servants. They have made no contract for that purpose, but admit their
responsibility; their claim is that the plaintiffs having represented and
agreed that the goods are of a specified value, and having thus obtained the
benefit of a diminished rate of transportation, are now estopped to claim
in contradiction of their representation and agreement that the goods are
of a greater value.
It is the right of the carrier to require good faith on the part of persons
who deliver goods to be carried or enter into contracts with him. The care
to be exercised in transporting property, and the reasonable compensation
for its carriage, depend largely on its nature and value, and such persons
are bound to use no fraud or deception which would mislead him as to the
extent of the duties or the risks which he assumes. It is just and reason¬
able that a carrier should base his rate of compensation to some extent upon
the value of the goods carried. This measures his risks and is an important
element in fixing his compensation. If a person voluntarily represents
and agrees that the goods delivered to a carrier are of a certain value,
and the carrier is thereby induced to grant him a reduced rate of compen¬
sation for the carriage, such person ought to be bound by his representa¬
tion and agreement. Otherwise he imposes upon the carrier the obliga¬
tions of a contract different from that into which he 1ms entered.—Dunlap
v. Inter Steam Boat Company, 98 Mass., 371. Judson v. Western R. R. Co.,
6 Allen, 486.
The plaintiffs admit that their valuation of the goods would be conclu¬
sive against them in case of a loss from any other cause except the negli¬
gence of the carriers or their servants, but contend that the contract does
not fairly import a stipulation of exemption from responsibility for such
negligence. We cannot see the justice of this distinction. Looking at the
matter practically, everybody knows that the charges of a carrier must be
fixed with reference to all the risks of the carriage, including the risk of
loss from the negligence of servants. In the course of time such negligence is inevitable, and the business of a carrier'could not be carried on unless he
includes this risk in fixing his rates of compensation.
57
When the parties in this case made their contract it is fair to assume
that both had in mind all the usual risks of the carriage. It savors of re¬
finement to suppose that they understood that the valuation of the goods
was to be deemed to be fixed if a loss occurred from some causes, but not
fixed if it occurred from the negligence of the servants of the carrier.
Such does not seem to us to be the fair construction of the contract. The
plaintiffs voluntarily entered into the contract with the defendants; no ad¬
vantage was taken of them; they deliberately represented the value of the
goods to be twenty dollars per barrel; the compensation for carriage was
fixed upon this value; the defendants are injured and the plaintiffs are ben¬
efited by this valuation if it can now denied. We are of opinion that the
plaintiffs are estopped to show that it was of greater value than that repre¬
sented. The plaintiffs cannot recover a larger sum without violating their
own agreement. Although one of the indirect effects of such a contract is
to limit the extent of the responsibility of the carrier for the negligence of
his servants, this was not the purpose of the contract. We cannot see that
any considerations of a sound public policy require that such contracts
should be held invalid, or that a person who in such contract fixes a value
upon his goods which he intrusts to the carrier should not be bound by his
valuation. McCann v. Lond. & N. W. Eailroad, 7 H. & N., 437; S. C., 3 H. &
C., 343; Eailrcad Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S., 26; Musa v. American Exp. Co., 1
Fed. Eep., 382; Hart v. Penn. Eailroad, 7 Fed. Eep., 630; Maguire v. Dins-
more, 70 N. Y., 410. We are therefore of opinion upon the facts of this case
that it was not competent for the plaintiffs to show that the value of the
goods lost was greater than twenty dollars per barrel. Judgment affirmed.—
Graves & Sons v. Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Eailway Co. Supreme
Judicial Court Mass., March 4, 1884.
Carrier.—Goods Not Delivered.—Loss by Fire.—A railway company
is not a common carrier as to goods deposited near its station for transpor¬
tation but not delivered to it; and is therefore not liable for loss by fire.—
Brown v. Atlantic & Air Line Eailway Co. Supreme Court South Carolina,
1883. Stoppage in Transit.—The right of stoppage in transit by the vendor
continues until goods have reached buyer and the delivery is complete. It
i s not impaired or extinguished by service of process of garnishment upon
the carrier.—Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Eailroad Company v. Painter
et. al. Supreme Court Nebraska, May 28, 1884. Telegraph Company.—Eepeating Message.—A stipulation contained
in a form used by a telegraph company in its business operations, to the effect
that it will not be responsible for mistakes in transmitting unrepeated
messages is a reasonable one. Variations are not uncommon and are
deemed venial in manuscript copyings from an original, and they are
much more to be looked for in a case where a double translation of a com¬
munication has to be made, first, into telegraphic signals or sounds and
58
then from these restored to the original language. The electric ticks to be
given at one end of the line, and to be interpreted and read at the other,
are not articulate sounds like those of the human voice, and are much more
liable to be misunderstood, and then the individual handwriting of the
sender and his meaning maybe misunderstood. To guard against er ror,
from these and other causes to which this mode of conveying intelligence
is peculiarly exposed, it is deemed but a reasonable and fair precaution to
secure entire correctness, that the message should be returned, so that
it will be certainly known it has correctly been carried to the person to
whom it was sent with the added compensation for its transmission both
ways. The cases to this effect are numerous.—Lassiter v. Western Union
Telegraph Company. Supreme Court, North Carolina, October Term, 1883.
Common Caeeiee.—Exemption eeom Liability.—Where one company
receives goods for shipment beyond its line, its notice that the goods are
shipped “at owner’s risk” protects all the lines which may handle them until
they reach their destination.—Kid v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway
Company. Supreme Court, Kansas, July 3, 1884.
Passengees.—Duty of Caeeiee.—A railway carrier of passengers is
bound to use every reasonable means jto keep in a safe condition all portions
of its station platforms and approaches thereto to which passengers or those
who have purchased tickets with a view of taking passage on its cars, would
naturally or ordinarily be likely to go. This includes the duty of properly
lighting at night their depots and approaches two and from the trains.—Bue-
nemann v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company. Suprem e
Court, Minnesota, August 21, 18S4.
Common Caeeiee.—Conteact to Caeey Live Stock.—Release.—
Plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for injury to a horse resulting
from alleged negligence of defendant company. The contract under which
the horse was shipped released defendant from “all liability for injuries
which theanimals or either of them may receive in consequence of any of
them being wild, vicious, unruly, weak, escaping or maiming themselves or
each other; or in consequence of heat, suffocation, or other ill effects of b e-
ing crowded, either upon cars or in yards, or on account of being injured
by the burning of hay, straw or any other material used for feeding the
stock, or in any other way, including negligence of said compan y’s
servants; and also for all loss or damage which may be sustained by reas on
of any delay in the loading, transportation or delivery of them, or in conse¬
quence of insecurity of the cars.” It was proved that the door of the car
in which the animal was carried, was out of repair and unsafe when used to
confine and protect live stock and that plaintiff's horse was injured thereb y
The car was an iron grain car and was subsequently used to carry lumb er
and passed by an inspector as suitable and sufficient for that purpose . It
was not shown or alleged that the company did not furnish a sufficient
number of safe and suitable cars for the transportation of horses, or that
such cars were not at hand and ready to be used when the shipment was
59
made. Held: that plaintiff was not entitled to recover; that as the causes
of injury specifically mentioned are such as could only occur during the
process of the shipment and transportation, and the negligence of the de¬
fendant’s servants included in the recital naturally refers and is limited to
a negligence occurring in the same process, if injury arose from a careless
selection of an insecure car by the servants making up the train, when safe
cars were provided by the company, or from any other negligence of such
servants during the process of transportation, the company is freed from
liability. The company was guilty only of a breach of contract to carry
safely, and from that it wa3 released by the provision of the contract re¬
leasing it from responsibility for any injury arising “from the insecurity of
the cars.” 89 N. Y., 370. Affirmed.—Wilson v. New York Central & Hudson
Eiver E. E. Co. Court of Appeals, New York. October 7, 1884.
Interference by Striking Workmen with a Eaibway in the Hands of
a Court.—Statement of Facts.—In the matter of the order on Edward
Doolittle and William Schanbacher to show cause why they should not be
punished for contempt in interfering with property in the hands of the re¬
ceivers of this court.
The marshal reported to the court that at Hannibal, Mo., he found the
possession and use of property in the custody of the receivers of the
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Eailway, heretofore appointed by this court,
interfered with by bodies of men, who prevented the agents and employes
of said receivers from operating portions of said property, by spiking and
blocking the tracks, drawing water from engines, inciting the agents and
employes of the receivers to quit work, and threatening them with violence
if they continued in the service of the receivers ; that he gave warning that
all persons interfering with property in the custody of this court would be
arrested and punished. He further reported that, in particular, one Edward
Doolittle had, on the 10th day of March, 1885, prevented James W. Eitchie
a trainmaster of the said Wabash Eailway, from taking out of a round¬
house a number of engines in the custody of the receivers, although noti¬
fied that these engines belonged to the Wabash Eailway. Doolittle was
reported to be a recognized leader of persons engaged in the unlawful acts
as above stated. The marshal accordingly caused him to be arrested. And
further, that on the 12th day of March he arrested one John Schanbacher
for holding an engine upon and for the purpose of blocking the main track,
over which Wabash trains are run into the city of Hannibal. Schan¬
bacher was previously warned that he was interfering with property in the
custody of this court, but he disregarded the warning and interposed his
person between the marshal and the engine, saying he would not let the en¬ gine go down the road; whereupon the arrest was made. Schanbacher Avas
also alleged to be an active leader in the “strike ” then in progress. The report of the marshal as to the acts of Doolittle was supported by
the affidavit of James W. Eitchie, a trainmaster of the Wabash Eailway, as
before stated, which affidavit showed that the engines and freight cars of
60
the Wabash Railway, the movement of which Doolittle obstructed, were at
the time in the yards of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, certain of
whose employe's it seems were then engaged in a “strike.” The affiant
stated: “I said to him (Doolittle), T understand that you object to my mov¬
ing these engines and this freight. How is this, when your friends and
associates have consented?’ He replied: ‘We have a point to make on this.’
I told him to make his point where it belonged and not on us. I told him
this was Wabash freight, and the Wabash had nothing to do with this strike
in any shape or form. He replied they were good ornaments. I asked
him to get into a car and talk this matter over with me, and he said it was
too rich for his blood, and I then asked him to walk down the track with me,
and he said he had not time.” The result was that the movement of the
nine Wabash engines and about one hundred cars of freight was de¬
layed some hours.
The prisoners, Doolittle and Schanbacher, were accordingly ordered to
show cause why they should not be attached and punished for contempt of
court, for their interference with property in the possession of its receivers.
They filed a reply in writing, alleging that they had not at any time been
knowingly or willfully in contempt of this court or its officers, or intention¬
ally obstructive of the decrees, orders of process of the court, but on the
contrary had intended to regard and obey the orders of the court so far as
they knew or understood them. As to the detention of the nine engines in
the Hannibal yards, they alleged that the trainmaster of the Wabash Rail¬
way “cordially” agreed to a delay of several hours, until Doolittle could ob¬
tain advice by telegraph from “ our headquarters” at Sedalia. Also, that
there being a difference of opinion as to which railroad the freight belonged
to, it was “harmoniously settled” between the trainmaster and the strikers
that it should be left where it was; that no violence, intimidations or
threats were used towards the engineers, or any one else, but that the en¬
gineers were unwilling to go out without the full consent of the strikers,
and thus the engineers were detained by the strikers, of whom
Doolittle admitted that he was one, and also that he acted as
their “spokesman.” Doolittle denied that he had participated in
spiking the tracks, drawing water from engines, or that he had
any previous knowledge that such acts were contemplated. Schan¬
bacher admitted that he “objected” to the marshal taking the engine to a
side track, but alleged that he did so hastily and without appreciating the
marshal’s authority, and a moment later called to the engineer to go onto
the side track, when some one in the crowd cried out not to do it. In con¬
clusion, both Doolittle and Schanbacher reiterated that they did not at any
time use threats or violence against any person, whether marshal or other
person. They admitted that their “zeal in the cause” might have led them
to commit acts capable of being construed as in contempt of this court,
but averred that such contempts were without willfulness, malice or intent on their part.
61
Brewer, J. (orally).—The facts in reference to this case are very ob¬
vious. It does not appear that these defendants in the first instance started
out to obstruct the receivers in their management of the road. In some
way they had ascertained that the road was in possession of the receivers
appointed by this court, and that it was not prudent to interfere with them.
But it is clear that, while engaged in a strike against the Missouri Pacific
Bailroad, they did interfere with the management of the engine and freight
cars under the control of such receivers, and did obstruct such receivers in
carrying on the business of the road placed in their charge by this court.
Now, while in one sense they cannot be charged with contempt in that
they intended to obstruct this court and its officers in the discharge of its and
their duty, yet they placed themselves in this attitude. They engaged in
an unlawful enterprise, and while so engaged they did interfere with the
officers of this court in the management of the road which was in their
hands as receivers. Now, if a party engaged in a lawful undertaking unin¬
tentionally interferes with some of the officers of this court and obstructs
them in the discharge of their duties, this couct is not tenacious of any
mere prerogative, and would let such action pass almost without notice;
but where parties are engaged in that which is of itself unlawful, in doing
that which they have no right to do, and in so doing obstruct the officers
of this court, although intending no contempt, that is a very different thing.
Suppose a party of men, and I state this merely as an illustration, com¬
bine to commit an assault and battery upon one person, and without in¬
tending so to injure, do, through mistake, actually seize and beat a third
person. Although such beating w'as unintentional, perhaps accidental, yet
as they were engaged in an unlawful enterprise, it is just the same as though
they intended that unlawful attack upon the person actually receiving the
injury. And so here, though these defendants did not set out to obstruct
the officers of this court and the receivers of the Wabash Company
in their administration of that property, yet they did set out to ob¬
struct some persons in the exercise of their legal rights; they did set out to
do that which they had no right to do; and this court is justified, indeed it
is its duty, inasmuch as they did obstruct the officers of this court, to re¬
gard it just the same, or nearly the same, as though they started out to ob¬
struct the officers of this court, the receivers of the Wabash Kailway Com¬
pany.
Mr. Charles Claflin Allen.—Do I understand your honor to say that the
act of striking, merely carrying out of the strike, was unlawful?
The court (Judge Brewnr).—It is not the mere stopping of work them¬
selves, but it is preventing the owners of the road from managing their own
engines, and running their own cars; that is where the wrong comes in;
anybody has a right to quit work, but in interfering with other persons
working, and preventing the owners of railroad trains from managing these-
trains as they see fit, there is where the wrong comes in.
62
I believe Judge Drummond, in a series of cases tliat came before him,
across the river in Illinois, where there was a direct resistance by parties
engaged in such a strike to the receivers appointed by him, sentenced the
ringleaders to six months in the county jail. In this case I do not feel as
though it would be right to treat them exactly as though they occupied
the same position; and yet, as I said before, I do not think it is a matter
that can be overlooked; things of this kind are not to be encouraged or
tolerated, and the sentence will be that they shall be confined in the county
jail for sixty days, and pay the costs of this attachment.
Treat, J. (orally).—As far as I am concerned, I should have given a
severer punishment if the matter had been left solely to me, and I should
emphasize the statement very strongly, that whilst it must be admitted, and
no one would admit it more readily than the judges of this court, as to the
right of every man to determine whether he will engage in this or another
employment, and would protect him in that right through any proper ju¬
dicial proceeding, he must not resort to lawTess measures to injure the
property or the person of any other party. More particularly is that true
with regard to the receivers of courts. If there was any just ground of
complaint, so far as the so-called strikers were concerned, this tribunal was
open to have them present their matters here, and the court would have
instructed the receivers with regard to it, and one of the prominent reasons
why courts are so prompt to punish men who interfere with receivers in the
custody and control of the property committed to them by law, is the fact
that any one engaged in employment under them can have ample redress
by applying to the court with respect thereto.
Now, instead of coming to this court to make application, as some other
parties have done—other employes—they chose to engage in a lawless en¬
terprise whereby were involved, not only the stoppage of commerce, but
perhaps a loss of millions of dollars, and merchants and private individuals
and all classes were injured by this lawless proceeding. And now the party
comes and says, what? Evasively, “ I did not know that I was interfering
with the officers of this court;” but he did know that he was interfering with
property that he has no right to interfere with, and “perchance he over¬
stepped the limit and involved himself within the jurisdiction of this
court; ” further, “ We did not directly by physical force do sundry and di¬
vers things; we merely requested other persons to do it.” A specious pre¬
tense! The court must be supposed to know, as everybody else does, what
the object was; it was the threatening intimidation which lay behind the
whole matter, and hence they are within the rule. “A request” under such
circumstances was a threat. The court cannot be blinded by such mere
specious language; the fact is there; the positive fact that here was a direct
threat and an intimidation. The form of language amounts to nothing.
Courts don’t stick in the letter. They look at the fact, the act itself, and
that was the case here. Parties determined lawlessly to stop the commerce
of the country, so far as these roads were concerned, and to do it by force,
63
by threats and by intimidation, and in doing it they interfered with the
property of this company under the charge of the court, and instead of
coming to this court, if they had any wrong to be redressed, and asking the
court to adjust their cause, they took, in other words, the law in their own
hands, and they must suffer the consequences of doing it. Of course I as¬
sent, as I must do, to the lenient punishment prescribed by the circuit
judge, but if it had been left to me alone, it would have been much severer.
—Ke Doolittle and Schanbacher. U. S. Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri, March 18, 1885.
A WORD ABOUT GRUMBLERS.
There are chronic grumblers everywhere. There are a great many in the
railway service. The chronic grumbler finds fault with everything, and it
is his especial mission to criticise every act of every person in authority;
and as a rule the better the officer and the more just the order, the harder
the grumbler grumbles. A feeling of uneasiness and meanness seems to
pervade the very atmosphere they breathe. We have no reference to the
bold, independent spirits, whose earnest voices are heard protesting against
everything that is wrong, and commending everything that is good, from
whatever source it may come, whether above or below their own official sta¬
tions. These moral heroes are the salt of the earth.
Fault finding with officers is often without cause. There are very many
unworthy persons placed in authority, who through ignorance, and the lack
of all those elements of character which fit men to command, provoke an¬
tagonisms, and bring upon them the enmity of employes; but the number of
good and able officers, who, under the most trying circumstances remain
faithful to honor and duty, is much larger.
It should never be forgotten that the officer who demands a strict ob¬
servance of duty from all, is the faithful friend of the faithful and worthy
subordinate. The good employe never shirks, and consequently he can de¬
rive no advantage from loose discipline. When the unworthy employe,
taking advantage of a loose principle, shirks his work, it is always at the
expense of better men, who must either directly or indirectly share the
blame for the faults of the w'orse. Though the voice of the strict disciplin¬
arian may sometimes seem stern, it should grate only upon the ears of the
unworthy, while in its undertone there is ever a touch of kindness and sym¬
pathy for those who are faithful, brave, and true in life’s battle. The first
duty of the officer, as of the employe, is to silently and faithfully execute all
orders from a superior authority. When his conscience prohibits him from
doing this, his only alternative is to resign. If the employe is dissatisfied with the occupation of his choosing, it
would be well for him to strike a balance sheet of his case. Place upon one
side capital invested, viz.: experience, judgment, and ability, in the acquir-
64
ing of which, he was doubtless earning a small salary. Upon the other,
place his salary, opportunities for promotion, the enviable record attain -
able, the many little ways in which he may become useful to a less fortunate
brother, and then, if after a careful analysis of the situation he still feels
aggrieved, it is his duty to resign; not, however, anticipating his resigna¬
tion will be rejected, as nothing of the kind will occur.
A STATION AGENT’S EXASPERATIONS.
The exasperations of the average station agent are many. To the sym¬
pathetic reader the following extract from an eastern journal is submitted.
The agent, while giving but his experience, voiced the sentiment of thou¬
sands occupying similar positions. He says:
I have been employed thirteen years as station agent at a way station where six passenger trains stop daily, two of which are mixed trains carry¬ ing both passengers and freight. I am obliged not only to have supervision over the affairs of the railroad company at this station, but also to do the work, which consists of telegraphing, selling tickets, checking baggage, way- billing and helping to handle freight, billing and handling express matter, and carrying the mail bags between the station and the postoffice, a few rods distant. “Something to do!” I think I hear you say; and assure you there is something to do at the time when the train is expected. Freight, way-bills and reports are to be made ready, tickets to be sold, baggage to check and place near where the baggage-car is to be stopped, the mail to be brought from the postoffice, etc. It not infrequently happens, also, that as the train is running in, and all is bustle and confusion, some passenger—who has been sitting quietly in the waiting-room during the last half-hour, while others have been purchasing their tickets and having their baggage checked in readiness for the train—comes rushing to the ticket window just as the agent is locking his office door to go out and attend to his train duties, and demands a ticket to some point to which the fare is thirty-nine cents. He throws down a five dollar bill, winch the agent has difficulty in changing, and he wants a trunk checked besides. At the same instant another man announces that he wants a message sent before the train starts, and w'ould like to have the agent wTrite it for him, as he is a “ little out of the hang of writing.” A third rushes up with some money loose in his hand and orders the agent to put it up and “send it by express on this train, sure.” Just then the conductor steps in, and in a voice that fairly quavers with impa¬ tience, asks the agent “ why in thunder ” he isn’t outside to tell the people what car to board? He gratuitously adds the cheering information that “the train can’t wait there all day, and wouldn’t wait if it could,” which sets the passengers frantic instantly. Two or three of the most excitable ones grab the agent’s sleeve, and ask if he is certain that is the train they are to take. Altogether, the agent walks not in the path of enchanted ease, and if he does lose his temper sometimes, much ought to be forgiven him, since he suffers much.
RAILWAY MILEAGE OF THE WORLD.
Ecuador .
Namaqualand....
Tasmania.
Ceylon .
Tunis.
Turkey in Asia
Philippines. Uruguay .
Java.
Queensland .
Cuba.
Turkey.
Algeria.
Roumania.
Egypt .
Norway .
Portugal.
South Australia. .
Denmark.
New South Wales
Victoria .
Chili. 1,374
New Zealand. 1,374
Cape Colony. 1,453
Netherlands. 1,512
Argentine Republic. 1,686
Switzerland. 1,735
Peru. 2,030
Belgium. ... 2,683
Mexico. 3,343
Sweden . 3,927
Brazil. 4,750
Spain.. 5,600
Italy . 5,800
Canada. 9,060
India. 10,832
Austria-Hungary. 12,321
Russia . 17,000
France. 18,023
Great Britain and Ireland. . . 18,668
Germany. 22,300
United States. 128^407
76
95
172
178
200
250
279
418
499
867
871
889
895
922
942
972
1,039
1,054
1,105
1,268
1,355
MEMORANDUM.
THE RAILWAY
STATION AGENTS’ JOURNAL, PUBLISHED BY THE
STATION AGENTS’ PUBLISHING GO.,
p. o. BOX 285. INDIANAPOLIS, IND.
The Journal is published monthly in the exclusive interest of
Station Agents, and is designed to serve as a department medium
for the interchange of thought on all matters pertaining to station
service. Every number is filled with fresh, interesting, and impor¬
tant reading matter, which commends it at once as an indispensable
publication of the service.
Subscription Price per annum, in advance, - - $1.00
As an advertising medium the JOURNAL is unsurpassed
by any publication of its kind; going as it does to Station
Agents in every StaJ:e, Territory, and Province of America.
Address as above,
G. W. CRAFFT, Manager.
THE RAILWAY
Station Agents’ Association, Designed to unite all Station Agents of the American Con¬
tinent in a fraternal union, having for its objects the development of
social and business interests, and the enjoyment of the usual bene¬
fits arising from mutual co-operation.
Agents residing in States having no Division, will be admitted
into the National Association on application to the National Sec¬
retary. Where Divisions have been formed, application for mem¬
bership should be made to the State Secretary.
Membership fee, $3.00; Six months’ Dues in advance, $1.50; Total, $4.50
NATIONAL OFFICERS.
GEORGE PETRY, Pres.,
Shelbyville, Ky.
O. P. RICKARD, Sec’y,
Merrillan, Wis.
G. F. TALMADGE, V. P.,
Hastings, Minn.
G. P. SPINK, Treas.,
Princeton, Ky.
EXECUTIVE BOARD.
G. F. TAPMADGE, Chairman,
T. J. KEAN, FRANK BECKPEY,
E. P. HOBART, C. H. ARMISTEAD,
W. G. PEWIS, P. A. CPARK.
G. P. SPINK,
Charters for State organizations will be granted on the applica¬
tion of fifteen members.
The third annual meeting of the National Association will be
held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, third Wednesday in July, 1887.
0. L. RICKARD, National Secretary.
GEO. PETRY,
O. P. RICKARD,
J. C. DOWNING,
THE RAILWAY AGE THE LEADING RAILWAY PAPER
OF THE WORLD.
It has separate departments devoted to general railway news
and topics, including CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MECHANICS,
TRAFFIC, TRAVEL, LATEST DECISIONS OF RAILWAY CASES,
ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ILLUS¬
TRATED ARTICLES, SKETCHES OF PROMINENT RAILWAY MEN,
EMPLOYES, PERSONALS AND MISCELLANEOUS RAILWAY INFOR¬
MATION, besides the editorial discussion of RAILWAY PROBLEMS
AND EVENTS.
ESPECIALLY ADAPTED TO THE NEEDS OF
STATION AGENTS.
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $4.00 A YEAR.
Address,
E. H. TALBOTT, PRESIDENT AND MANAGER,
HOME INSURANCE BUILDING,
CHICAGO.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
THE ADVANTAGES( 0 033 266 421*9 MONON ROUTE,
X*. KT. A. Cb C. H-y.
SURPASS THOSE OF ALU OTHERS. Passengers via this route and connections to NEW ORLEANS, ATLANTA, JACK¬
SONVILLE and all tlie Winter Cities of the South, are enabled
to make the entire trip in luxurious
THROUGH COACHES AND PULLMAN BUFFET SLEEPERS, Passing' through the most populous and historical parts of the South, visiting
enroute the Cities of
DEARBORN STATION, CHICAGO TERMINAL.
LOUISVILLE, CINCINNATI, NASHVILLE, MOBILE, MEMPHIS, CHATTANOOGA, Etc., and allowing stop-over
at Mammoth Cave, Ky.
Single Trip and Tourists’ Tickets via the MONON ROUTE can he purchased
at all Coupon Offices in the North and West.
Rates, routes and Pullman accommodations, etc., furnished on application to
L. E. SESSIONS, T. P. A. EDW. BARTON, P. A.
Minneapolis, Minn. Lincoln, Neb.
or, E. 0. McCORMICK, Gen’l Pass. Agent, Chicago.
